Talk:Speranza

Controversy

Hey, I removed the "controversy" stuff because there were no links or owt and I don't think that really happened. Do come back with anything substantive, though, if you have it!

a) Please sign your talk page entries. You can either press the button second from the left, between the crossed out W and the line, or just type --~~~~ b) I don't have any cites because I was never in dueSouth fandom, and I was told this information via phonecall with LaT in a completely unrelated context. I've restored the controversy info and added a needs citation tag. --zvi 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was me, lim, up top. Forgot to sign. I was in due South fandom, though not in 00/01. I would like for you to cite or link this confrontation, because I don't think it really happened--whether it's a misrememberance or just a bit of a fib, it's pretty shady dealings, to be putting stuff up like that uncited. Like, where does it end, do you feel me? Can we get a mod in to say what the policy is?

Dude, you should really find a citation before putting something potentially offensive up. Etothepii 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of ppov. Look, if you remember the history differently, write your own POV. I will talk to LaT this evening so I have a date, and cite to personal communication. P.S. I am not, in actual point of fact, an enemy of Francesca. I just remembered something she did that was not written on her page, so I added it, as one does with a wiki. --zvi 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's really not. It's just part of "pix or it didn't happen". If you express something as fact, you need to back it; if you don't have a citation, make it unambiguous as hearsay -- "earlier members of fandom have said that..." or whatever. I don't know shit about the Sentinel fandom, and frankly, I don't particularly care, nor was I the one who reverted your changes. I thought it was an interesting fact, but you still have to cite your sources. I'm not saying that to be mean to you or something. Etothepii 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, though people got irritated afterwards because they didn't know they were the same person, nobody ever called Speranza or Francesca out on it. Where was this confrontation? --Merry 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Zvi, so I added in what you said on this page to what you wrote on the front page, so it's clear that it's your POV rather than a Fact like, IDK, when ds_flashfic started or whatever. Hope that's all cleared up now. Lim 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)lim

Lim, your change seems very reasonable to me. I just changed my name to all lowercase to reflect my referred usage and other references to me in the wiki. I didn't realize this wasn't common knowledge in dS fandom when I added my entry, or I would have made the source clearer. I spoke with LaT about the situation, and she clearly remembers that Ces was asked flat out by some people and denied it. She gave me some names to follow up with. I will e-mail them and ask them to expand on the entry. Etothepii, quoting from the PPOV policy The plural point of view: … Does not attempt to establish a "definitive account" or "definitive history" of fannish events, terminology, or activities. "pix or it didn't happen" is pretty much the opposite of that.--zvi 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with how it is now, where you're the one currently being cited as the source (as opposed to no one being cited), and that's all I wanted. I don't consider it to be violating PPOV at all. An example of what I mean would be like if, for example, someone decided to document the HoniSoit/Tritorella and whoever the fuck drama in DS fandom, which clearly has two people who are saying two contradictory things (which boil down to X did Y, and X did not do Y). There, the "pix or it didn't happen" phrase would mean that someone would need to source who (or somewhere that) says the former and who says the latter, as proof that people said it -- it's not that you need to prove either is true. It's that you need to prove that it's something people have even considered as being potentially true/untrue. (For example, by "default", there's no reason people would assume a naming controversy occured, therefore, there needs to be proof that there was one). Etothepii 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

whether it's a misrememberance or just a bit of a fib, it's pretty shady dealings, to be putting stuff up like that uncited. Like, where does it end, do you feel me? Can we get a mod in to say what the policy is?

Policy is that we strongly encourage people to cite claims like this, but also (in line with PPOV) be less confrontational with language ("confrontational" may not be the best term - more relaxed, open, suggestive rather than definitive).

So for in this case, I would rephrase: zvi says, though she can't provide links to said confrontation and was never in the fandom herself: "Although confronted with the similarity of her work as Francesca to her work as Speranza, she did not initially admit to being the same person."

as: Rumour suggests that Speranza was initially reluctant to confess that she was behind both the "Francesca" and "Cesperanza" pseuds (when readers noticed the similarities). [needs citation]

The above statement rephrases the claim in a way that acknowledges its subjectivity, and uses less confrontational language (in terms of both zvi and Francesca). It acknowledges directly that the statement itself needs citation in order to support the claim it's suggesting (with the [needs citation]).

In terms of finding citation *before* putting on a wiki page; I think that with the wiki medium, often it's important to seed information both to place-hold and encourage others to come along and build on it. In this example, keeping the statement basic (not going into detailed claims that can't yet be supported), open to other interpretations, and inviting citation/supporting evidence is definitely suitable.

Thoughts? --Hope 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than not understanding the parentheses around the phrase "(when readers noticed the similarities.)" your change also seems fine to me, although I'm not upset at being named as the source. Honestly, I thought it was common knowledge, as I knew about it and am not in dS. And, thank you, Hope, for better articulating what I was going for with your seeding description. --zvi 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoo! Indentation! \o/ I still think it's shady to put stuff up like that uncited--referring to a specific incident and assigning specific actions to someone. I appreciate zvi's contribution and willingness to be open about it, but your change seems disingenuous, Hope. (And...Confess? To what? o.O) Anyway, I'm just...There's one person saying one thing on this page and three people saying something else, which is natural and happens with memories. I don't know what's confrontational about saying that straight up. I mean, let's not go mad, it's hardly an omg!heinous accusation. Lim 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)lim

This is what I recall, and anyone is welcome to include this on the Speranza page if you think it's relevant. (I'm not sure that it is.)

I drifted into Sentinel fandom in 1998 and drifted out sometime between 1999-2001. While I was in Sentinel fandom, Speranza started posting stories. I seem to remember that her first tS fic was the first fanfic she ever shared on the internet. Later, without ever communicating with her directly (I was too shy to talk to anyone one-on-one), I became aware that she had been recruited into Due South fandom and was writing under the name Speranza. I don't recall that she ever denied that on the SENAD mailing list or that any controversy ever erupted there over her identity. If there was a controversy about this in Due South fandom, I never heard about it, but I didn't join Due South fandom until 2003 or later.--Lipsum 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

zvi wrote the truth. I know this because I was one of the ones outside the circle who had been informed of Francesca's new identity as Speranza. I learned that it was only one person after 9/11, when I had been online for hours checking to see if everyone had reported in from NYC, and named them separately in the same post when asking about their safety. I was informed by someone within a few days that they were the same person, and that the confusion over the duplicate identity had apparently been a source of some amusement to the group who knew. I was also told some months later by another fan that she had confronted Speranza publicly about the deception. I am not naming names here, but can do so if asked for further verification.twistedchick 09:07, 9 October 2008

Yeah, I honestly didn't see what the big deal was about zvi's initial statement-- I thought it was pretty common knowledge that (1) yes, she wrote under a new pseud, (2) yes, some people suspected, (3) she did not confirm their suspicions. ....I, personally, remember emailing Ces a LoC on one of her early Speranza stories and going "A HA! It's you!" and her replying "SHH!" (This is not a direct quote, I don't have access to my old emails any more.) It was my impression at the time that she switched pseuds because she knew that many fans of her TS stories would have been angry/disappointed/demanding if they knew she wasn't going to be posting more of the "Nature Series." (I remember being on Prospect-L and seeing people get actually upset at her for posting new *Sentinel* stories that were not part of the "Nature Series.") So, not a malicious deception, but yes, I always presumed that she was deliberately trying to keep the two pseuds separated in order to avoid people being jerks about her leaving the fandom. And I always thought that was common knowledge, not in the least "potentially offensive." -- Liviapenn 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge that she wrote under both names, or common knowledge that there was ever controversy about it? I knew the former and not the latter, and fandom always has new people coming into it with no knowledge. The information itself doesn't seem, IMO, potentially offensive at all, but some of the phrasings have been around that territory. --ainsley 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in this fandom, but I know quite a few people who have written under different pseudonyms, for a variety of different reasons. I wouldn't use the term "deceptive."

Regan_V suggested that I write in the Harry Potter fandom under a different name when I worked on the sequel to a popular fic, to get rid of that feeling that I was writing it under stage lights. Expectations were far too high and I worried about disappointing people. Brenda... oh, can't remember her last name... wrote under the name "Seeker" in the Harry Potter fandom to give herself breathing room. A well-known author loses the audience they built when they do this, but it's a chance to see if you're over-hyped, or if you can really write. -- Icarus 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Influential works

Why "With Six You Get Eggroll" as influential work in Due South? If I would have to name one fic for Due South, it would be "Chicago's Most Wanted" because that's the one that was always quoted as her best story before she wrote "Written by the Victors" in SGA. --Doro 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Frogspace! Yes! Chicago's Most Wanted would be a good addition.Lim 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)lim

"With Six You Get Eggroll" was actually quite influential. On Livejournal, I still regularly see people who've had a bad day refer to it as a "Lost Zebra" kind of day, and I know quite a few people who have or have had "Lost Zebra" icons. At Con.txt in 2006, a number of people in the Due South/6d fandoms were given gift bags that were, if I recall correctly, a survival kit for that kind of day, containing zebra finger puppets and juice boxes. I removed the (influential?) note. Giddygeek 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I created Lost Zebra Day. I encourage some one else to start a page for With Six You Get Eggroll!--æþel (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Does this page still need a "needs more citations" notation? --Mrs. Potato Head 02:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it: speculations on the page have been properly identified and attributed.--æþel (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fanfic Links

Should the links to individual fanfics be direct links to the stories themselves? Or should they be internal links to pages about the story articles as they appear on Fanlore? --MPH (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is a wiki page for the story, the link should go to the wiki page. The story page has an external link to the story. If we would use external links every time a story is mentioned on another page, no one would ever find the story page and it would defeat the purpose of the wiki. --Doro (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, but wanted to double check. --MPH (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)