Talk:Samuel R. Delany

message: Should the name of this article be "Samuel R. Delany" instead of "Samuel Delany"?  That is how the author is named on all his published work.
:Seems fair enough, and consistent with other authors here. I say be bold and move it. Matthew Woodcraft
::His nickname, by which he is generally addressed, is Chip. Apparently he chose it himself.
::Nuttyskin 04:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I move that we rename the article to simply Chip. How's that for bold? ;) Luminifer (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still wondering.  Is it DELLAH-nee or de-LAY-nee? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delany's name?

message: To be consistent with other wiki articles about writers, should the biographical material be a section "below the line," and perhaps filled out a bit, with a more general "who is SRD?" statement "above the line?" [User:Sturgeonslawyer|Sturgeonslawyer]
I strongly disagree with this statement. It is untrue, trivial, and misleading:
"Delany vaulted onto the literary stage when he was included in Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions. Harlan gave a short introduction that ironically pointed out how Delany was one of the last straight science fiction authors. "
Dangerous Visions was published in 1967. Delany did not 'vault' onto any 'literary stage' at that point; he was a published science fiction author of six science fiction novels and one novella, all published by Ace. 'Literary stage' is misleading and hackneyed. 
The stuff about the short introduction to him in Dangerous Visions is at best irrelevant. It's not an important milestone in his life or the science fiction field.
If I don't hear some comments for keeping it, I'd like to take it out.
ZviGilbert 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical stuff 

message: How to rephrase this? Given SRD's orientation, the quote "Delany was one of the last straight science fiction authors" acquires an unintentional ambiguity. Tearlach 7 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
:I'd say just remove the wikilink to straight.  The ambiguity isn't really that ambiguous, and its entirely fitting.  -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 04:00 (UTC)
::And while you're at it, please remove the link to gay writers. Samuel R Delany is bisexual - not only behaviourally, but avowedly so.
::Nuttyskin 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Delany is gay and has said so in print countless times.  He is not bisexual.  Many gay men have had at least some sex with women. --SethTisue 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellison quote

message: Besides the "The Dartmouth" cite, Google returns over 100,000 hits for "samuel chip delany", most of which refer to the subject of this article.  I'd move it back to the lead, but there was at least a little resistance to that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only objection is to putting in the bolded name. I wouldn't object to moving the mention to the lead, though I'm not sure there is a great need for it there. I wanted to add The Dartmouth and the date of issue to the citation, but I'm not sure how those cite tags work. Are there fields for those things? IPSOS (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I've heard and read enough of him as "Chip" that it's more than a nickname.  Anyway, I've expanded the citation.  I need to go through and clean up some of the other refs as well.  Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for yours. I just looked at the diff expanding the reference so now I know how to do that at least. :-) (I'm not sure I like the cite tags as much as simply formatting it myself...) IPSOS (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a matter of what works for the page. The cite tags are very useful on pages like the Dhalgren article, where some works are cited repeatedly. For this page, another method is just fine. --Kdring 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it can be "more than a nickname" if it's not on his passport or license, no matter how many people use it. Hmmm, would it be more appropriate to cite The Motion of Light in Water" here? He actually discusses his nickname in the book. --Kdring 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nickname 

message: I've removed the "more sources" template from the article because I don't see anything that particularly needs a citation.  If there are facts that you think ought to be referenced, please indicate them within the body of the text so I can supply a reference for them. Jd4v15 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing references

message: I was startled to find (on a search on 28 aug 07) that Amazon lists just ONE title by Delaney, and B&N.com only ONE (a different one). None of the novels or critical works cited are listed for current purchase. Can it be true that all of this author's works are so out of print as not to merit listing? Or is something more nefarious going on?
:It helps if you spell his name right. It's "Delany" not "Delaney". I get 12 currently in-print books for sale and several pages of used and out-of-print books. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you talk to Chip at conventions, though, you'll soon learn that he's had trouble for years keeping his books in print. He's not a "safe" writer like Robert Jordan or Misty Lackey (both nice people, but less edgy). --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Print/Banished from Amazon??

message: Shouldn't information about his work come before his biography? The main reason we are interested is his stories. Life.temp (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), there doesn't seem to be an "official" order. But in my experience, bio-before-work is pretty common in biographical articles (William Shakespeare, Goethe, Stephen King...). Jd4v15 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes the most sense to the editors here? I vote for a profile of his writing before details of personal history. Life.temp (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that as it's an entry about the person, a biography should come first. As to Themes vs. Works, that would only be appropriate if someone actually wrote a section on his works (which are also, of course, discussed in differing lengths on their individual pages). Right now, all there is is a discussion of the themes that run throughout his body of work, so the title is appropriate. It would be VERY nice if someone were to expand the article, though! Kdring (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: "also published as the substantially different, more definitive[4] Out of the Dead City"
To my mind, if a book is published under a different title and substantially different content, it is a different book. So 'also published as' is not quite right. Also, the reference cited isn't much use - is Delany saying that Out of the Dead City is more 'definitive' a telling of the same story? As Out of the Dead City is a rewritten version pub.1968, the edition cited must be after this time. Should we just have an entry in 1968 for Out of the Dead City, perhaps with explanatory text? Clearly this needs to be in the bibliography, along with Delany's reasoning (if that is what is referred to by the citation). I just don't think we are doing it correctly at the moment. Millichip (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Also Published As'

message: So a citation is needed on something that was added a few days ago. The request for a citation was made on the third of July, and the item was removed before the next business day? Why not give someone a chance to actually cite something? 
Furthermore, did anyone notice that the IP address that was used to make the addition was from Boston University? Since that archival center is IN Boston University, it makes sense that someone there would know better than most. 
Finally, just a bit of Google research turned up a page on the Archival Center site (part of the BU main site) that lists "Twentieth and Twenty-First Century individuals collected by the Center." Yes, on that list is one "Samuel R. Delany."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I went ahead and reinserted it a short while after I started this section. I mean, really, what was the point in removing it so fast? I realized that I had actually found something to cite, so I just went ahead and got 'er done. Kdring (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that somebody went through Wikipedia and was putting almost identical language in a number of articles, even if the Gotlieb only had one or two documents rather than "papers" in any meaningful sense; so the whole shebang were reverted. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm. I guess that makes sense. It would have been nice, though, to have an actual link to the reasoning instead of a cryptic reference. FWIW, the Delany holdings there are fairly extensive, with letters, manuscripts and all sorts of related papers. However, while I know this, personally, it's not something that I'm easily able to whip out a reference to. I'll see if it's mentioned in any of the many books about Delany. Kdring (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why such fast removal? 

message: I think that the bibliography might want to be its own page by now - it's pretty big, and there's a lot of textual stuff that can be added on the nature/history of various reprints... Anyone agree? Luminifer (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd wait. Unless you're ready to expand it right when you split it off. That'd make it worthwhile. Kdring (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography on separate page? 

message: The following is unsourced information:
*Among Delany's more unusual credits is that he wrote two issues of the comic book Wonder Woman in 1972, during a controversial period in the publication's history when the lead character abandoned her superpowers and became a secret agent. Delany scripted issues #202 and #203 of the series.
*Delany was the April "calendar boy" in the 2007 Legends of the Village calendar put out by Village Care of New York.
While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wondering . . . is a source needed to prove that he wrote the novels listed on the page? If not, why would a comic book be any different? Does Alan Moore's bio need sourcing to show that he wrote Watchmen? What should actually happen is that the Wonder Woman stuff should be moved to the bibliography. Kdring (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass-market comic books (as opposed to graphic novels like Watchmen) do not always credit writers. I haven't seen this particular comic book myself, but I think a citation is appropriate given that. SparsityProblem (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Mass-market comic books have consistently credited writers for most of the past half-century! --Orange Mike  |  Talk 12:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Comics Journal did a long interview with him---It has been rewritten and then incorporated in S. D.,Silent Interviews. It is on google books and he talks also about Wonder Woman. ---The Wonder Woman fansite wonderland-site.com shows the 2 numbers--Radh (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I have seen the comics, and he is credited. Given this, wouldn't whatever serial # is attached to the comics be a valid enough reference? Luminifer (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: A recent edit changed his identity to African American. I would have thought that the national identity in the first para would be that which he has on his passport. Of course his identity as an African American may be (and in this case, of course, is) immensely important to the subject. But presumably style would suggest a neutral, value-free approach and a simple' American', with something  about his African American identity high up in the article? I haven't changed because I'm no expert on these matters in Wiki, but if no-one objects I will.  Millichip (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His origins as a Delany of Harlem are right there in the article. He is not characterized as "an African-American SF writer" because in his early years, few people knew or cared, and nowadays he is simply considered a stellar, pioneering SF writer who happens to be African-American. The fact that you make such assumptions about science fiction fans and Wikipedia editors in general speaks volumes about your ignorance of both communities. I am proud to be a member of both, to be open in my identity, and to have called Chip a friend for almost forty years. I yield to no-one in my admiration for the brilliance of his work, and I have given up in despair at the challenge of translating his jewel-like prose. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: National Identity

message: The initial paragraph of the article mentions that Delany is a Science Fiction author. I don't know if that's true, any more. Yes, he wrote a great deal of SF, but he is also a critic and has written quite a lot of non-SF fiction. Should he just be an "American writer"? Kdring (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SF is still his favorite genre, and the one for which he has achieved his greatest fame and acclaim. The other stuff can go in there too, but he's still the same guy you see at :science fiction conventions all the time. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that he should not be genrefied and pigeonholed. It should encompass all of his material, not just one segment of it. Feel free to change it. Luminifer (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I said that he should NOT be genrefied - i.e. it should not list him specifically as a "science fiction author". He actually hasn't written straight science fiction in roughly 30 years. Luminifer (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're ignoring They Fly at Ciron; Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand; and the as-yet-unfinished The Splendor and Misery of Bodies, of Cities? Delany still considers himself an SF writer; that's not a diminishment of him, in his eyes or in the eyes of his readers. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True; I would not count Ciron as he really wrote most of that a long time ago, but Stars does count. The classifier is not a diminishment but is limiting in how useful its descriptiveness is. Imagine if someone comes to the article looking for the famous critical writer regarding gay issues in inner cities - they might see "is a science fiction writer" and (wrongly and hastily) think "ah, this can't be the man". Science fiction should be mentioned, but it is not all that he writes - and in fact is not even all of the fiction that he writes. It should be listed, but along with other a broader definition including all of the fiction that he writes. The problem with 'science fiction author' is not that it is a diminishment, it is that it is very incomplete.Luminifer (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Mike, I would argue that of the more than 20 books he's had published  in the time mentioned (the last 30 years), only two of them have been science fiction. Less than 10% of his output. He's published at least as much porn in that span, twice as many books of fantasy, and probably more non-fiction than fiction. Kdring (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that I think, even going back to the beginning of his output, less than half of it is science fiction. If you include criticism about science fiction, maybe then it would go over 50%, but I'm not sure. Luminifer (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, but identifying him as a "science fiction author" would be similar to listing Avery Brooks or Patrick Stewart as a "science fiction actor" - it does not represent nearly the entirety of their work, and is a misleading description for the reasons discussed above. He is an author who sometimes writes science fiction, who sometimes writes about science fiction, and thinks very highly of the genre. Luminifer (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1-If he is still writing or not is irrelevant, he wrote SF and it is still in print; he's a SF writer. 2- I've never heard anyone called a science fiction actor. 3- And actually, I think New Wave Science Fiction Author would be more accurate. Nitpyck (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone a "science fiction author" even though less than 50% of their work (however you measure it) is science fiction seems to be misleading. I think the current text is fine. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre? 

message: There's a neat little Invisible Theater[ article, which claims it to be a very recent phenomenon. I recall that Chip Delany had a troupe of folks doing this (street theater that just ppopped up) in one of his great mainstream SF novels, but which one? Thx in advance. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to Triton? Aisha9152 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think so. Do you remember the name of the theater group and main characters? Young, feisty boy and girl, I dimly recall. I'll add to Invisible Theater. Or you can. WP:OWN Bellagio99 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  the leader of the 'micro-theater' was a woman named "The Spike". the main character of triton was "Bron". i looked through the book but could not find a lot that was relevant for you but i think it is the book you are thinking of Aisha9152 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's fine and enuf. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Delany SF novel featured Invisble Theater? 

message: That category was for some reason marked red when I removed it so I thought it was a nonexistant category and wasn't aiming at vandalism. Anyway, why sholdn't Hogg be listed among his most notable works? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The category I restored was American SF writers; you are correct, that there is no category African-American SF writers. Hogg is not a notable work, indeed it is one of his most obscure works, a minor footnote at most and (deservedly, in my opinion) out of print for most of his career. Your persistence in putting it back into the article in a prominent position seems to me to fall somewhere between mere vandalism and "pointy" editing in violation of :WP:BLP and the expectation of a neutral point-of-view. (Full disclosure: I know Chip and he knows me; we've corresponded [on an unrelated matter] within the past month.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

text: We're agreed that you meant well with the category bit; don't sweat it. As to Hogg: "highly appreciated it so I thought I could spread the word to others" is the opposite of what we do here, since it involves personal judgement and original research. We don't make judgments as to "noteworthy"; only as to "notable". The evidence is that Hogg, while notorious in some circles, is not really deemed a notable work compared to a Babel-17 or "Time Considered as a Helix..." Note also that some of the critical remarks quoted in the article on Hogg fall more in the area of critical defense rather than praise. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mea Culpa 

message: Could someone fix the citation for Balled of Beta-2. It was a Nebula Award nominee in 1965 in the novella category, the first year the Nebulas were given out. I messed up the citation in the edits. If someone could fix it I would appreciate it. It's cited among the nominees in the first Nebula Awards volume. (SRD.)     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.81.184 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. "Ballad of Beta-2" has a link to the Wikipedia article, and the partial edit you made was to "Empire Star".  Can you clarify? BMK (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Samuel R. Delany. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Hall/7506/RJprog.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalbook.org/nba2010.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice his support for NAMBLA has been scrubbed. I think that warrants a POV tag warning. What do others think? Edgespath24 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the passage about NAMBLA from the early life section. Its only cited source was an interview published on blogspot, which is a clear violation of the policy on self-published sources in BLP articles as I read it. With a better source, it could be reinstated. —Rutebega (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Then find a reliable source, if it's not that hard. The replacement source you provided was an archive of a Medium article, which is user-contributed content. Anybody can write for Medium by paying them $5/mo. This is a biography of a living person. Strong sources are required for controversial content. Skyerise (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not by some mundane rando or some Delany-basher. It was a long, thoughtful interview by Cory Doctorow, a critic with a solid reputation in the science fiction community. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the interview was by Will Shetterly. An archived interview. Go to the original URL and you get "The author deleted this Medium story." Did he think better of it? Or was he or Medium made to remove it? There's another article out there... same article but in several different places with several different by-lines. If you go down the rabbit-hole, you'll see that every single source quotes the NAMBLA site (which we don't find reliable). How can we tell that? The NAMBLA site quote has "[Bulletin]" inserted into it. Take that out, and you'll find only two mentions, who clearly just took the time to edit the insertion out. The whole issue is very dubious. I've not found a source with an independent publisher, everything about it everywhere is self-published. This is exactly why WP:BLP requires strong sources. We don't know if it's true or if it's some kind of campaign.... kinda looks like a duck to me though. Skyerise (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I notice his support for [[NAMBLA]] has been scrubbed  

message: We currently have "Their marriage (which alternatively encompassed periods of cohabitation and separation, experiments in polyamory, and extramarital affairs with men and women conducted by both parties) ...".   I am a straight, married, monogamous (without exception since marriage),  heterosexual, and if that's still too vague for you (bcz I don't mind you considering it your business, if that's your kink or professional role) devoid of each of post-adolescent, and penetrative, homosexual experience. (So to speak, a straight supporter of gay liberation and of inter-orientation sociality and alliance.) Not that you should care, but of course YMMV.   My concern is with, I think, the overly clinical and/or legalistic wording that for me (at least) suggests an excess of moralism toward, or an intolerant clinicalization of, an often under-empowered and isolated human category. (I don't deny that "minority" is ever a valid analytical concept; it is an overused and thereby an abusively wielded one. If you regard it as an importantly relevant one here, please say so, and explain.)   First, perhaps "party" is a clear-cut term in law (for those constituting a group without relevantly conflicting interests in the legal action at hand). If there was a relevant legal dispute at hand, it should have been identified; if not, something along the lines of "each" or "between them" is obligatory, bcz calling the couple "parties" is dehumanizing, and insinuates misconduct by one or both. The insinuator should be at least anonymously admonished by admins, on behalf of the community of editors, whether or not we undertake identifying, or perhaps even publicly naming, them. I probably need say no more, tho I shall reword, at least to the extent I have just advocated.--JerzyA (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the entire offending paragraph as being unsourced (it had two references, one to another WP article and the other did not mention the article subject). If you want to rewrite it I would suggest looking for sources first. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concurrence & appropriate action. (But in find myself far better at "dropping a flag on such "plays" than being evenhanded in rewriting: "it's easier to state a problem than a solution", and for me lots harder to do the fix well and courteously, even when momentarily back in ... uh, "fighting trim".--JerzyA (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, and I follow what you mean.  Glad to hear that you're in good form at present. Wham2001 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage "experiments in polyamory, and extramarital affairs ... with men and women conducted by both parties"