Talk:John C. Wright (author)

support for 6th january us capitol attack

https://scifiwright.com/2021/01/regarding-the-events-of-jan-6/ He seems to have supported the 6th January Unites States capitol attack which he calls "events" to highlight "election fraud". I would suppose this is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.152.148.97 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

Got the information straight from the horse's mouth this time. - LukeyBoy

Looks as though a lot of stuff has gotten lost in the edit war, both bio details and other stuff. Most obviously, while a wiki-search on the name still points here, his wife isn't mentioned. Though it looks like she's worth an entry of her own, as a published author. Otherwise, it looks as though Wright's career has been almost edited out of existence. The category-list is suggestive. But I wouldn't restore references to his children. 88.109.143.248 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Thx for writing, and it's fun, but it's not encyclopedia NPOV. "alyosha" 06:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's probably better now than it was in December 2005, but it could still use some revision for more encyclopedic style. And probably the biography should come before the bibliography, as seems to be more standard. --Jim Henry 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography section has been moved. Almitydave (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Youngest child's name?

The about the author bio on Orphans of Chaos gives the youngest child's name as "Juss" (which made me suppose he was named for the main hero of The Worm Ouroboros). Can someone verify whether this is a typo and the correct name is "Just"? And the phrasing,

whom he calls Orville, Wilbur, and Just Wright.

seems a little odd -- does it mean these are nicknames rather than real or legal names? --Jim Henry 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The author bio on the author's homepage, and his wife's homepage, and their Livejournals, all concur that the child is called Juss.

The Linked article on JCW being libertarian specifies the third child is named Justinian. --148.87.1.170 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

St John's

"(going from the third oldest to the second oldest school in continuous use in the United States)" You mean St John's right? since it wasn't mentioned. This article needs a rewrite. --Geedubber 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on views against homosexuality

I am not conversant enough with the specifics on BLP rules to make the call on this one, but writing a summary of his controversial views based on primary sources comes up close against Wikipedia policies against original research, on primary vs. secondary sources, and BLP sources in general. A reliable, secondary source for what is said here would clearly be preferable, whether or not the current paragraph is appropriate. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The best sources to use when describing a living person's views must be primary sources - those of the person or people in question directly - there is no such thing as a more reliable secondary source than a primary source for someone's own views. If anything, the use of secondary sources in preference over the statements of the individual themselves is be discouraged for BLP. I am, however, concerned over the fact that the original post has now been deleted. LinaMishima (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The full text of his post is still available on the Internet on other resources: Alas A Blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.114.132 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent vandalism here followed some trolling/flaming comments posted to one of his LiveJournal posts, which itself was regarding the Sci-Fi channel's perceived caving to pressure from a "homosexual lobby." Mr. Wright frequently posts on many topics, however, especially sci-fi, writing, economics, politics, and culture in general, and adding a section to this article dealing only with comments regarding homosexuality sounds to me like a POV-motivated edit. Perhaps a section could be added detailing his numerous outspoken views on many topics, but John C. Wright is primarily notable for being a science fiction/fantasy author, and not every unpopular or controversial thing anyone says deserves an encyclopedic mention, IMHO. Is there an applicable Wikipedia policy? Almitydave (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section would be inappropriate, as it would give too much weight to the topic. However, a mention somewhere would be entirely appropriate, given how this topic has spread. Perhaps trim and merge in the content, whilst expanding the rest of his bio appropriately (so as to ensure proper weight - there are far more interesting things about the man, I'm sure), then wait and see if this story develops any further. LinaMishima (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section and added a mention in the bio regarding his LJ which I believe is more consistent with Wikipedia policy. If something truly notable does eventually occur that warrants mention, then of course it should be added. If anyone feels this is incorrect, please discuss. Almitydave (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, reading his later blog posts, it appears that he has, if not regret, an understanding that different wording might have prevented problems, and bares no ill will to those he may have offended. Perhaps if a longer version is kept, this should be also included. Unfortunately this isn't clarified as much as I would have liked, especially not within a manner concordant to the way that wikipedia operates (i.e. we can't go interpreting metaphore or reading between the lines). LinaMishima (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He has specifically apologized for the tone of the offending post, and in subsequent posts responded to many of the objections and comments. In addition, much of the offending post seems to have been highly sarcastic in tone, as are many of his posts and comments on Live Journal. They often result in heated debates, and this particular occurrence would not have been more notable than the others, except that one reader posted an invitation in another forum for its members to come and flame/troll JCW's site. I think my original point above is still valid, and creating a controversy by trolling/flaming is not worthy of treatment in WP. The current paragraph about the controversy as it stands is not even an accurate account of the post and subsequent events. Almitydave (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I read through his posts, and whilst I feel he was trying to appologise, I do not believe that it was explicitly stated as such. The sole explicit appology was to a single commenter. Unfortunately, we cannot simply state that he has appologised, as he hasn't said as much. There might be other possible wordings, however. Whilst I'm sure the tone was exagerated in the original post, the upset did not appear to be due to mis-interpreted sarcasm, and the commenters did not come from a single forum at all. Aside from the hyperbole, the wording seems a reasonable account, albeit missing his later elaboration. For now, I think the entry should stay, although the weighting of all sections needs to be made more appropriate. LinaMishima (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"I read through his posts, and whilst I feel he was trying to appologise, I do not believe that it was explicitly stated as such." I am John C. Wright. I did offer an apology and it was explicitly stated as such. However, I do not see how such an apology has any bearing on a wikipedia entry, which supposed to be point of view neutral, and not passing judgment on my adherence to Catholic Catechism teachings or my political correctness. Wikipedia guidelines do not seem to allow for mere gossip or personal criticism. If you want to condemn me and to urge others to do so, wikipedia is not the correct forum. The controversy in any case was artificial, even if the outrage was real, since the flamewarriors were fanned on by an editor in economic competition with my editor at Tor books. JohnCWright 16.54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some links which might be of use when resourcing and re-weighting (ie, shrinking for now, unless more major sources pick this up) the section: Hal Duncan [1]; Jason Henninger (Looks to be one of Tor.com's showcased bloggers?) [2]; [3]; (will be just editing more in here if I find any reasonable additions to consider - really looking to find a properly RS source) LinaMishima (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I still think the paragraph in question should be left out pending further development, its position at the end of the bio combined with a prior mention of his LJ site, as well as the changes to the text of the paragraph itself are an improvement. If the consensus of WP editors is that it should remain this way, then that's the way it should be, but please keep WP policy in mind when editing, especially the Soapbox and Journalism exclusions. Almitydave (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP was a poor choice to be honest, as there is little soapboxing present - only an incomplete, overly weighted entry (and does seem to show your own biases, when taken in context of your other comments). If you were considering an appeal to WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, there is a far stronger (in this case) policy to appeal to, and that is harder to argue with.... LinaMishima (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As John has now clarified his views, I feel that we can start to draw this saga to a close. I've trimmed down his quote and the entire section to better respect WP:DUE. Although linking to a mirror of the original post is tempting, WP:BIO states that people are entitled to privacy, and as such we should allow statements to be withdrawn. The new version does need copyediting, but it seems much more fair now. LinaMishima (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally happy with this section, because it seems *unintentionally* NPOV - if we're going to talk about his views on this, we should at least --link-- to one of the posts or other things he's written various places online where he explains the philosophy that this naturally follows from. For example, this post: http://johncwright.livejournal.com/277089.html . (The one linked to in the references is mostly about that specific event.) in the textShowing only half of someone's position isn't really NPOV.

The current wording could be improved, but since I last edited it, the current version is what appears to have consensus for now. However, what you refer to has little to do with NPOV. It doesn't directly relate to the affair (and if it did, seriously, they're only digging further, to use the technical term), and might have a place elsewhere in the article, however to add it to the controversy in any meaningful manner would give the entire section far too much weight for something so small compared to everything else. LinaMishima (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this disputed section, this material (with the same sources) should not be replaced. Please see the comment at the BLP noticeboard here Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

== On his blog http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/03/orson-scott-card-blacklisted-for-christian-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-86285, speaking about support for gays, he says "For what is the political correctness you support? It is a cult. What do you worship in this cult? You worship your phallus."

And later, "You correctly see that if men stuffing their members into the smelly rectums of other men is even so much as frowned upon, that your own member-stuffing into whatever harlots or trollops you seek to conquer and exploit would be condemned."

And later still, "The homosexual lobby does not give a tinker’s damn about equality: they are tormented by inner guilt and inner rage because they know that homosexuality is psychologically unhealthy and morally repugnant..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.144.175 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing and personal bio - need to convert interview list into references

I've added back in the old personal history section. On a hunch, I checked the interviews linked in the article - these seem to potentially provide sources for all that material, and there are a lot more anecdotes within them which we could use to further flesh out the article. LinaMishima (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring that section; it was removed by a vandal. Considering the ongoing recent vandalism, should this article be semi-protected? Almitydave (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For now it looks to have quietened down, let's see how things go. If we see more anon vandals again, then we get get protection applied. LinaMishima (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This should probably have a place in the article, I suspect The Cross and the Stars - Catholics in the field of fantasy and science fiction. - need to check RS and N for the source, but looks useful. LinaMishima (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section.

Link three is to a blog and does not look much like a WP:RS to me. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This one [4] Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With the current sourcing, the controversy section is totally unacceptable. We have to see very rigorous for those claims. Kevin (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, and presently it has been removed, as your an admin would you take a look at..this which is part of what is going on here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After the latest re-insertion I have semi-protected for 3 months. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done Kevin. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy reinserted in 2013

As per the above conversation, the "Controversy" section that is being inserted here is completely unacceptable per WP:BLP - it is sourced only to a variety of personal blogs, not to any reliable sources reporting on the matter. Therefore, it has no place in the article and may be removed without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If articles written by the subject themselves isn't a reliable source, how can anything ever be considered reliable? It's an import section to include to present a whole and balanced set of information about the subject. Right now the wiki page reads like a PR piece for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.186.209 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prohibits personal blogs and other self-published sources from being used in biographical articles. There is an exception for material known to be published by the article subject, but even that is subject to extreme caution.

There is no clearly-established encyclopedic reason to call out Mr. Wright's views on homosexuality as a subject within his Wikipedia biography. There is no requirement that the article be "balanced" - that is, we do not include negative information merely for the sake of having something negative in a person's article. Criticism and debate related to a person must be significant and encyclopedic. There is no evidence that a five-year-old LiveJournal post is significant or encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'blog' referenced is in fact expressly the subject's, and is a direct record of his worldview. Omitting this leaves a large part out of present a complete representation of the subject. My use of the word 'balanced' isn't meant to be an arguemnt for negativity included for some negativity's sense, far from it - it's that the wiki page currently doesn't present an whole refection without it, which is neither positive nor negative. The fact that you think it's 'negative' is your own subjectivity being imposed here, hardly neutral. What is neutral is, is to present what is known about a subject regarless of what that is, and in this case is significant. It's lack of presence here strikes that his 'image' is being scrubbed in a decidedly non-neutral way. (On that note, just take a look at this in the first section: " Publishers Weekly said he "may be this fledgling century's most important new SF talent" when reviewing his debut novel, The Golden Age.[1]" This reads like an advert and would be more appropiate found on marketing material.) It is very much so significant is presenting a more complete record of the subject to include the controversy section as well as encyclopdic due both to this significance, as well as the series of events that resulted from his postings of his world views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.186.209 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue you referred to has not been documented by any reliable sources. By Wikipedia's standards, that means it is not encyclopedically significant. Until and unless such documentation is provided, the matter will remain out of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I find I must agree strongly with the other poster, and that is has been documented by reliable sources. You even quote yourself that there's an exception "for material known to be published by the article subject". That this is missing on the page is omitting a significant information about the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.226.38 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who reverted an attempt to reintroduce the “Controversy” section. However, in fairness to the opposing view, I have looked at WP:SELFSOURCE and it does appear that an article subject’s own self-published statements on a blog count as reliable sources. I apologize for my error. Nevertheless, I think the inclusion of this section violates the first and third prongs of the WP:HARM#TEST for biographies of living persons, which are:

1. Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it....

3. Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life....

Here, Mr. Wright is primarily known for being a science fiction novelist. True, he also blogs fairly regularly. And while it is true that he has expressed views about homosexuality on his blog, he has also expressed views on tons of other topics, none of which are being proposed for inclusion here. Unlike, e.g., Orson Scott Card, there has been no notable boycott campaign or other notable public response to his comments, outside of a few personal blogs. Wright’s personal views on homosexuality, like his other ethical/religious/political views, are simply not encyclopedically notable. Unless we were to turn this article into a replica of Wright’s extensive blogging on, e.g., Catholicism, movie reviews, comic book characters, writing techniques, and various political issues, it is impossible to include this matter without granting entirely undue weight in relation to this subject’s notability as a novelist. E.g., Wright has published some blog entries on the Second Amendment, but it would be silly to have a section on them because they are not notable, and such a section’s inclusion would give a casual reader the false impression that the Second Amendment is some kind of personal hobby horse for Wright. To include a section on Wright’s views on homosexuality gives the reader the false impression that such views are a major part of Wright’s public persona, or of his notability. They are not. If they become so, (as they have for Mr. Card, e.g.), by all means add the section back in. But right now, I respectfully suggest that including the section is inappropriate.

There is further good discussion of whether inclusion of this section is appropriate archived here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive71#John_C._Wright_contains_potential_slanderous_material

Among other things, the archived discussion includes the sadly plausible opinion that "[s]ince it is the only report of his point on view on any topic, [inclusion of this section] appears to be an attempt to humiliate him for expressing an unpopular belief." Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I will say that I'd like to see this section re-added at some point. I've read on other sites that there was some controversy with this individual and came to wikipedia to learn more and was unable to. While his views may not be as big a part of his public persona as they are for Card, they definitely are well known and should be included for completeness. From NPOV perspective, it could be as simple as "since his conversion to Catholicism, he's spoken and blogged against homosexuality" or something like that. Suppafly (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

His blogging is now misrepresented

Clearly I missed an entertaining edit war here. But claiming that his writing is primarily about science fiction, without including his extensive writing about (against) feminism, gay rights, and communists appears to be POV from here. Why do we think this is either not relevant, or not appropriate? --Thalia42 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

With all respect and with gratitude for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, it remains that your edit was unsourced--and potentially only could be sourced to Wright's blog, since his political views are not notable enough to have attracted reliably sourced attention. Worse, your edit reflected its own blatant POV ("god" rather than the correct capitonym "God" in an article about a monotheist is a tendentiously nonstandard capitalization that reflects a militantly anti-monotheist POV in violation of Manual of Style religion-related capitalization rules: "Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah."). Your edit also skirted close to violating policy on biographies of living persons, to say nothing of balancing aspects. Another editing quarrel over this article (a repeated target for POV defacement by Wright's ideological foes) would be unconstructive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and we're not here to right great wrongs. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The lack of capitalization was an error not a polemic. The source for his writing discussing science fiction are also sourced to his blog, so claiming that sourcing to his blog for his other topics is rather disingenuous. But there are indeed plenty of third party sources addressing his issues with women and gays. See for example: http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-john-c-wright.html, http://geekfeminism.org/2009/08/13/fail-again-fail-better/, http://catvalente.livejournal.com/514713.html, http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/authors-you-might-not-know-had-bigoted-views --Thalia42 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Of those, only BuzzFeed is even arguably a reliable source suitable for use in biographies of living persons. We can source material from his blog because it is indisputably known to be his writing - and hence, a reliable source for reporting his point of view. The question becomes whether that point of view is an important enough part of his life to be encyclopedic. Everyone has opinions on everything - our biographies are not laundry lists of what someone believes and doesn't believe.

Other points of view merit space if they are significant, but we can only use material which has been published in a reliable source with known editorial control and fact-checking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Currently the references are one article about one of his books on a publishing site, and five links to his own blogs on livejournal and elsewhere. And you consider writing by other authors such as Catherynne M. Valente (an award winning SF and fantasy author, by the way) to be not a legitimate source? That's pretty funny. But wait, I have another source: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2009/08/outrage-and-art I can find plenty more. Like it or not, Wright's bigotry is well documented. --Thalia42 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Self published statements on blogs are not acceptable sources for BLP's unless they are written by the subject of the article himself or herself; this is true even if the blogger happens to be "award winning": here is the policy. The blog hosted at Tor *might* be acceptable if Tor can be considered to be among "news organizations [that] host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." You'd have to find out about Tor's editorial policy for its bloggers. Although, even then, I don't know that Tor is a "news organization," but I think you could probably craft a decent argument.

However, all that is beside the main point. The main point is that you have revealed your motive by characterizing Wright's views as his "bigotry." You don't like Wright's traditionalist views on sexuality, and you are determined to right great wrongs by shaming him publicly for them on Wikipedia. That sort of harassment of someone you dislike is exactly what BLP policy exists to thwart. Wikipedia is not the place for political activism or political point-scoring. Whether you (or I) find Wright's views troubling is irrelevant here. Continued efforts to right great wrongs are a recipe for an edit war. Let's not. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider it harassment to acknowledge author's statements made on his blog, which he freely shares with the world. Can you explain why that would be harassing? In fact, if you click through to Mr. Wright's blog, you will find significantly more posts about politics than about science fiction. Isn't it misrepresenting the blog to claim it is about science fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it might help to back up to another question: in what way does it make this a better encyclopedia by "document[ing]" Wright's alleged "bigotry"? Potentially violating BLP policy doesn't seem worth risking without some reward to the mission of the encyclopedia. Thanks. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I only want to include that he blogs about politics, religion, feminism, as well as science fiction. I think it's a more accurate statement of the content of his blog. Would that pass muster?--Thalia42 (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think that would be a problem. I don't personally think his blogging is really notable (as opposed to his novels), but there's no harm in mentioning it. I would suggest, however, that we strive for NPOV formulations, and keep it brief. Your "he blogs about politics, religion, feminism, as well as science fiction" looks great. Good luck! Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hugo awards nomination controversy

Well, now his blogging has become news worldwide, as it related to him being part of the recent Hugo awards controversy. His posts about homosexuality have been referenced. We also have several sources commenting on what they say is his lack of writing skills, contrasted with him being nominated for three out of five slots in one category, and how this was part of an effort orchestrated by his publisher, Vox Day. DreamGuy (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as its sourced by WP:RS and not WP:UNDUE, I guess its fair game until some idiot comes along and does this[5]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To quote the Guardian[6]:

But on Saturday, members of the World Science Fiction Society rejected the finalists for the Hugos in an unprecedented five categories, voting for “No Award” rather than any of the nominees backed by the Puppies, which had included work by John C Wright, an author known for his homophobic views. Nominees picked by the Puppies won in only one category: Guardians of the Galaxy took best dramatic presentation.

If a major newspaper summarizes his existence as "an author known for his homophobic views", it might deserve a couple words in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section (again)

I've placed the {{Undue-section}} template on the controversy section, because the size and detail of it seems out of balance with the size and detail of the rest of the article leading to NPOV and BLP concerns.--Jahaza (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Wright (author). 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/20120623083419/http://johncwright.livejournal.com/516931.html to http://johncwright.livejournal.com/516931.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Wright (author). 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/20070928095535/http://www.thenightland.co.uk/nightsilenceofthenight.html to http://www.thenightland.co.uk/nightsilenceofthenight.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

years degrees were awarded

John C. Wright, on his website [7] , says he graduated from St. John's College in Annapolis in 1984 (that would be a Bachelor of Science degree) and received his Juris Doctor in 1987 from the College of William and Mary Law School (aka Marshall-Wythe School of Law). My edit that expanded and corrected the previous information was reverted. I have reverted that revert. 173.73.172.102 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)