Talk:Steven L. Thompson

Untitled

I have been reading Steve Thompson's writing for most of my life. His hundreds of articles in Car and Driver and AutoWeek when I was a kid. Then professionally as an editor at AutoWeek and PC Computing magazines, where we would generally ask him to write as often as possible. It was no surprise that he went on to author a number of books, including the Max Moss novels and Wild Blue, nor was it a surprise that they were so uniformly excellent. The only "surprise" was that just one of them was turned into "a major motion picture," as the saying goes.

It is amusing that Wiki requires confirmation of the "notability" of one of the best-known, most prolific and most respected journalists in his chosen areas of interest, which have in common devices with the ability to rev upwards of 9,000 RPM and send pulses racing. Walkerpercyfan (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC) George Damon Levy, former editor AutoWeek, former founding editor PC Computing

Great to see this page. The listings and descriptions are accurate and complete. Beyond the citations and records of accomplishments, Steve has been influential in the background in innumerable ways involving lots of people ---- andygoes

I'm pleased to see this page and the depth of information contained within it. I have enjoyed Steve's writing for many years. More recently, I have worked closely with Steve, helping to publish his experiences and reviews in both print and online. ---- Matthew Miles, Managing Editor, Cycle World magazine

I have known Steve Thompson for more than 35 years, have worked with him at two different publications and have read all of his works, and I can say, without reservation, that he is as legitimate an author and journalist as you're likely to find. In addition to being entertainingly suspenseful, his novels provided real-world insight into surreptitious military philosophy and tactics. And his magazine work, among other positive attributes, offered readers an insider's view into the psyches of those individuals who carry on lifelong love affairs with automobiles, motorcycles and private aircraft. In almost all cases, Thompson looks beyond the obvious and popular explanations to search for the real reasons these enthusiasts are hell-bent to do what they do. Paul Dean, former Editor-In-Chief and Editorial Director for Cycle Guide and Cycle World magazines P.J.M. Dean (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a degree of anonymity to magazine editorship, and so few outside the editorial offices know of the contribution of individual editors. So if, despite his six successful novels on the side, Steve Thompson's name is not well known, it should come as no surprise. Nevertheless, in the world of special-intersest magazine publishing (by far the largest category of magazines) he has an enviable reputation as a thinker and do-er. In his editorial career he was instrumental in ensuring that a number of prominent special-interest publications (e.g. Car and Driver, AutoWeek, Cycle World, Road Test, Pilot, etc.) ventured well beyond mere enthusiasm for their subjects. The result was a courageous embrace of genuinely enterprising journalism that took on challenging topics, at times even to the discomfort of some readers. As an example, while editing automotive magazines he was far from reluctant to explore the social cost of the automobile. Never content with letting his publications descend into mere fan-dom, he brought a genuine interest in the real-world implications and historical origins of every article he contemplated. In sum, in an arena where, sadly, pandering is too often the norm, he was a a true magazine craftsman.

---

David Abrahamson, Ph.D., Professor of Journalism, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University and former managing editor, Car and Driver

Back in the dark ages, the late '60s and early '70s, Steve and I served together in the USAF, based in England. I edited the base newspaper (Traveller, RAF Mildenhall), and Steve worked in the base graphics department.

Initially, he contributed numerous drawings, cartoons, and amusing illustrations for the articles we ran. Steve was already a veteran motorcycle racer, and he later proposed that we run a regular motoring column in the newspaper. From his very first Wheels column, Steve established himself not only as an extremely knowledgeable source on things automotive, but also an excellent writer who was able to clearly communicate, defend his work, and conceive of a variety of subjects that kept even non-gearheads interested.

It's no surprise, then, that he went on to write for, and then edit, national magazines.

Off-duty, Steve wrote short stories and essays that presaged his later success as an engaging and entertaining author. In fact, though I can't recall the title, and suspect he may not even remember the piece, he wrote the finest short story ever to capture the spirit of the motorcycle rider. If you are a fan of Cold War intrigue at ground-level, do yourself a favor and start with Recovery. You'll soon see what I and the other commenters here are talking about.

Steve's Early Work

Back in the dark ages, the late '60s and early '70s, Steve and I served together in the USAF, based in England. I edited the base newspaper (Traveller, RAF Mildenhall), and Steve worked in the base graphics department.

Initially, he contributed numerous drawings, cartoons, and amusing illustrations for the articles we ran. Steve was already a veteran motorcycle racer, and he later proposed that we run a regular motoring column in the newspaper. From his very first Wheels column, Steve established himself not only as an extremely knowledgeable source on things automotive, but also an excellent writer who was able to clearly communicate, defend his work, and conceive of a variety of subjects that kept even non-gearheads interested.

It's no surprise, then, that he went on to write for, and then edit, national magazines.

Off-duty, Steve wrote short stories and essays that presaged his later success as an engaging and entertaining author. In fact, though I can't recall the title, and suspect he may not even remember the piece, he wrote the finest short story ever to capture the spirit of the motorcycle rider. If you are a fan of Cold War intrigue at ground-level, do yourself a favor and start with Recovery. You'll soon see what I and the other commenters here are talking about. Mahoney James (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a comment on Steve Thompson’s “notability”. I have known him many years and he is notable for a number of reasons. First of all, he is an accomplished and successful writer of several heavily researched historical novels. Secondly he is extremely well known and respected in the automotive world. He has been a very successful editor of and contributor to many high profile magazines, himself raced motorcycles, and continues to write thought-provoking columns and editorials. The text presently included in Wikipedia documents these activities very clearly.

Finally, he is notable for his unquenchable intellectual curiosity. Having dropped out of college to join the military, followed by quite a bit of his writing and journalistic career, he returned to the university and became completely involved in the history of technology and in particular the question of why people enjoy moving fast. His book, Bodies in Motion: Evolution and Experience in Motorcycling, is an example of the latter, and is a heroic fusion of research in many fields and his own original work, (some of which I had the honor to participate in). I am sure he will write a blockbuster on the history of technology some day.

All of this on top of the fact that he was involved in an almost fatal motorcycle accident a few years ago and has done an amazing job of putting himself back together mentally as well as physically.

Believe me, he is notable.

James L. Adams Professor Emeritus, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Management Science and Engineering, Program in Science, Technology and Society, Stanford University.

Jamesladams (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Several points about this piece, noted by "Wiki", need correcting, they are misleading or simply wrong.

The comment regarding "single source (September 2013)" is incorrect. A simple scan of the piece and the list of references clearly show this is a misstatement. Secondly, originally a comment was posted by "Wiki" regarding "list format versus prose". The article IS in prose with appropiate items in list format as those two categories are best presented - for reader clarity - in that format. Third, the "Wiki" implication that there are only "self-published sources (September 2013)" is completely wrong. The volume of reference sources at the bottom of the piece clearly lists the vast array of published reference sources from the varied world of Academia, Technology, History and Society. This statement needs to be corrected/removed immediately as it inappropriately impinges on the authenticity and ethic of Mr. Thompson.

I am familiar with Mr. Thompson's work having read it in many of those listed sources over the last, almost 40 years. As a career military officer, I always read his military focused pieces with a critical eye. He never misrepresented, he never disappointed.

Stewart M. Crane Colonel, US Army, (Ret) Stewcrane (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Folks, there is no beast called "Wiki" that goes forth and says things. There's just a bunch of individual volunteer editors, doing their best to improve the encyclopedia, generally one step at a time. In the case of the "tags" (those notes at the top) you're complaining about, most of them were put on the article by me... and were put on when the article looked like this, to which I think you'll agree they apply.

If you see changes that you think need to be made to the article, the best thing for you to do is to simply make them. You're all able to edit the page. I have dropped a welcome message on the talk page of each of you that have posted messages here, which includes links to help tell you how to edit and what makes a good edit (proper referencing and such.) It would be a great help to the millions of people who use Wikipedia if you were to take advantage of your knowledge to help improve the encyclopedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of notability for new users

Hello, there are a lot of new users visiting this article to give a perspective about "notability" and also about how Wikipedia works. First, thanks all for your interest and I hope that any of you would stay to make things better. Because it has high Google rank Wikipedia is among the world's most consulted sources of information for a great many things. This includes motorcycles. I edit medical articles, but I happened to see you all gathering here and wanted to say hello.

Here's a great starting rule - all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. See WP:Verify for guidance. In practice, this means that someone should put a citation after every statement made. One after every sentence is best; if a paragraph is from one source then at the end of the paragraph is fine. Any sentence in this article which is not tied to a source will eventually be deleted. Content which is not from published sources is not welcome on Wikipedia - the verification of all content and forbidding of new content is how Wikipedia and all encyclopedias work, as encyclopedias summarize existing information not report new information. Look through this article and imagine that everything without a citation will be deleted - that is the future of this and all Wikipedia articles.

Notability is a Wikipedia technical term - see WP:Notability - which means that the subject of the article has been written about in reliable sources. One kind of source which does not meet this criteria is self-published sources. If reliable sources are not sharing a certain piece of information, then exclude that information from this article. Thanks for visiting here and if any of you have published sources to share then please make citations for them and integrate them into this article. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth

My actual birthday is May, not March 27, 1948, in San Antonio. Please correct it. You can check the birth and death records of Ancestry.com or birth records at Bexar County, Texas for 1948 to see the correct date, along with my parents, Ray Lynn Thompson (1921-1991) and Velma Mildred Thompson (Tate), (1923-1991). -- Steven L. Thompson

Ttrider87 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a typo in the infobox; thanks for pointing it out. — Brianhe (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd section headings

Regarding the sections Professional timeline and Contracted positions: why are these two separated this way? Why not list them all together? There seems to be some kind of implication that there's a distiction between employment and contract work, but does it really matter to the reader of Wikipedia? — Brianhe (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

About those "citation needed" postings

I admit to being a naif where Wiki-stuff is concerned, so I was surprised when somebody slapped a couple of "citation needed" tags on my academic and later, my military records. As I understand the Wiki-world, you demand that any statement be verifiable by something published. Well, to take my high-school status first: I suppose if one could find a copy besides mine or those in the hands of the other 400 or so classmates of mine in the Bella Vista Class of '66, you could read the "Commencement Exercises" booklet given to all in attendance by the school, for Thursday, June 9, 1966, at 7pm. Therein, you'd read this note at the end of the class list: "*Honor students, wearing red robes, rank in the upper 10 percent of the class", and looking at the class list, between Stephen Craig Thompson and Sherry Yvon Thorn, you'd see my name with an asterisk, denoting my honors status. Apart from that, where on earth do you think such a "citation" would be published? I've been writing and editing professionally for more than 40 years and I can't recall any reason nor publication in which such a citation of my high-school achievements would be necessary. So if, despite the fact that I strongly suspect that the vast majority of high-school honor students who have bios posted in the Wiki-world have not been subject to similar scrutiny and demands for "citation needed", you feel it necessary, Wiki-people, to "take down" my reference, by all means do so. But the facts remain, as anyone calling the Registrar of Bella Vista High School in Fair Oaks, California, would find out once he/she convinced the Registrar that the request for verification was valid.

Similarly, although I think I've noted in print a few times that I graduated in December, 1995 from Berkeley with a B.A. in History with High Honors, to my knowledge there is no database online that can be consulted to verify this. The old-fashioned way of contacting the Registrar--which I did a few times to check the claimed academic credentials of job applicants for publications I ran--still is the only effective way to verify a person's degree type, date, and honors. It's possible that in my latest book -- Bodies in Motion: Evolution and Experience in Motorcycling -- I included details of my academic work at Berkeley, or maybe in an essay or review for Technology & Culture, for which I was an Advisory Editor. I can check and maybe find a citation that will satisfy whoever feels that there is reason to doubt my word on this.

Finally, the recent stamping of a warning about citations needed for my military service falls into the same general category. My Air Force service is something to which I've referred often in print and online (my web site, for example), but so far, our DD-214s, records of military service, are not themselves online, for obvious privacy purposes. I should point out though, for those who don't know, that in order to join the American Legion, one must present a valid DD-214, and thus, my having not only been a member but also a post commander (of Post 47, Livermore, CA) from 2012 to 2013 ought to provide a rather strong hint that my claims are not fairy tales. Again: what, my friends in Wiki-dom, would constitute the "evidence" needed here?

A further comment: I understand that the demand for published material is one of the few ways this operation can assure any sort of accuracy in its articles. But surely some among the Wiki-people know from their own academic and professional lives, what we who are educated and trained as historians or journalists, or indeed, scientists of all stripes know: that "original research," so dis-esteemed among the Wiki workers, is actually the seed corn of all serious knowledge (if not wisdom).

--Steven L. Thompson Ttrider87 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that if you polled Wikipedians, they would say that they think that original research is a great and wonderful thing, and that the world should do more of it... just that it shouldn't be done in Wikipedia, because doing it here is disruptive to what we're trying to achieve. (I may love the Beatles, and wish it were not against the laws of nature for them to regroup, but even if they did, I would not want them to perform in the room during my gall bladder surgery.) Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first draft, it's supposed to be the summary of what is verifiable. We've got enough struggles with accuracy; the further we get from verifiability, the harder time we have getting people to accept what they see here.

If you wish to encourage "original research" into you, and you wish to have such information reflected on the Wikipedia page about you, probably the best thing you can do is not to have your friends add things they know to the Wikipedia page, but to encourage them to build an article for some reliable publication. A nice article about you in a respectable newspaper, in some cycling magazine, or whatever, as long as it's the sort of place where we can assume that they're telling the truth and would not talk about you if you were not of significance and are not under your control or in your debt would go a long way toward establishing notability and allowing us to treat the facts they cite as facts. (And while I'm sure you feel all your friends are trustworthy, those of us with experience editing have at some time seen groups of folks, whether actual groups or one person using multiple accounts to masquerade as a group, organized to confirm false information about someone with the goal of having it inserted.)

Another way to view at least some "Citation needed" flags: if other sources aren't covering the information there, is it really important enough for us to be? Not every fact about a subject need be in our article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To me it seems easier to simply delete it rather than make the effort to try to track down these records. Anyone reading this article is interested in what books you wrote, races you rode in, and magazines you worked at. Where you went to high school or which honors you might have had there don't really make a difference one way or the other. To avoid possibly propagating false information (good or bad) about a living person, it's much safer to delete it.

Another way of looking at it is to ask whether any third party publications thought these biographical details were important enough to print. If we don't have a reliable source that fact checked it and printed it, then what is our reason for wanting to include it? Finally, we have all the time in the world. If the information is found in a good third party source, it can be added back at that time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Further Information From A Colleague

Back in the dark ages, the late '60s and early '70s, Steve and I served together in the USAF, based in England. I edited the base newspaper (Traveller, RAF Mildenhall), and Steve worked in the base graphics department.

Initially, he contributed numerous drawings, cartoons, and amusing illustrations for the articles we ran. Steve was already a veteran motorcycle racer, and he later proposed that we run a regular motoring column in the newspaper. From his very first Wheels column, Steve established himself not only as an extremely knowledgeable source on things automotive, but also an excellent writer who was able to clearly communicate, defend his work, and conceive of a variety of subjects that kept even non-gearheads interested. Examples of all of this work are available in hardcopy archive issues of Traveller.

It's no surprise, then, that he went on to write for, and then edit, national magazines.

Off-duty, Steve wrote short stories and essays that presaged his later success as an engaging and entertaining author. In fact, though I can't recall the title, and suspect he may not even remember the piece, he wrote the finest short story ever to capture the spirit of the motorcycle rider.Mahoney James (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but Wikipedia does not work by corroboration. The way articles here are written is using verifiable sources. That means anybody -- no matter who they are -- should be able, with reasonable expense and effort, verify everything in an article. Sometimes that means traveling to a library or buying a book or magazine, or paying for a subscription to a paywalled service. But being an actual witness to events is not verifiable unless it has been published in a third party source that others can look up.

When dealing with biographies of living persons, this is particularly sensitive, since great harm can be done if false information is placed in an article. Death by Wikipedia describes some of the more egregious cases. Biographies of living persons goes into greater depth on the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "Honor Bound"'s audience test and the need for a citation regarding it: I think you should remove the text about the movie not being shown in the US after audience tests, given your comments, because the only way I knew about it was by telephone at the time. I'd contacted the company that produced the movie--Filmaccord--at its LA headquarters and was handed off to John Flock, a producer and attorney. He told me it was not being released here because audience tests at Ventura (CA) convinced the distribution people that, given the nature of the film, which focused on the Berlin Wall, and given that events had overtaken the movie--the Wall came down, dramatically--the decision was made to try to market it elsewhere. Unless there is some record of this decision in Variety or other movie trade publications, this series of actions and decisions can't be verified by Wiki (non-original research) methods. So I propose you just axe the ref to the audience tests. The movie exists, of course, as the IMDB listing makes clear, and if you Google it, you'll see somebody posted the entire movie on YouTube, in segments.

Ttrider87 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo(s)

Need your advice, Wikipedians: I have a photo of me aboard my 350 Shepherd-Kawasaki in England in late 1971, wearing my Lewis Leathers racing suit but no helmet in our Thetford, Norfolk, garage, shot by an English friend (Gordon Keown) who later produced many excellent photos for me when I was editing car and motorcycle magazines. He's read and agreed to the Wikipedia use "license", and sent me an email to that effect, with the photo in question attached. So the legal aspects of using it on Wikipedia ought to be handled The question is, in your opinion, would such a photo be useful and appropriate?

Ttrider87 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We always want a photo with a biography, and while there is a leaning toward more candid shots, without having seen it, one with you on your vehicle sounds like a good and appropriate one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please direct the owner of the photo rights to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thanks! — Brianhe (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

verification of degree: In case you'd like to do a bit of online research, I paid for a National Student Clearinghouse degree verification, which the Registrar at U.C. Berkeley told us today is sometimes used for Wikipedia purposes. Would you like to check the degree that way? I can give you the info you need (order ID and email address used). Please advise. Ttrider87 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians: as requested, steps to verify the subject's degree status

Steps to verify degree:

1/go to www.degreeverify.org; this brings up the National Student Clearninghouse main page 2/Click on the large gray button marked “Verify Now” 3/on the page that brings up, on the right side, click on “Find Past Verifications” 4/on the next page (Find Past Verifications), type in the email address: (Redacted) in the “Email” window, and type in the Order ID in the next window: (Redacted) 5/this brings up the transaction results; click on the green underlined word “Certificate” 6/That will bring up the verification certificate in pdf form, which shows that the subject holds a BA in History, and did not just "attend" Berkeley from 1966-1968.

Therefore, please correct the line in “Early life and education”: instead of the current phrase, “He went to the University of California, Berkeley, 1966-1968” I suggest you insert “He holds a BA in History from the University of California, Berkeley, and served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from 1968-1972," with the appropriate Wikipedia-style reference note attached showing verification.

Hope this helps.

Ttrider87 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Degree verification

I have accessed the National Student Clearinghouse files and downloaded a document indicating that Steven Lynn Thompson, born 05/27/1948, got a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California - Berkeley with a major in History. Before integrating this, I do have two notes:

• I have no experience dealing with National Student Clearinghouse documents, have not verified that they are considered a WP:RS.
• The dates given on this document are not what we would expect. They say that he attended from 09/01/1966 to 12/01/1995, and was awarded the degree 12/19/1995. That late date is curious.

Having said that, it seems to me (without careful surveying) that college attendance, sub-graduate degree, and major are the sort of things that we would normally accept as not particularly boastful information that could be reasonably sourced to the subject rather than a third-person source. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Good enough for me. We have no reason not to trust the National Student Clearinghouse. This is not an extraordinary claim and it isn't the subject of any known controversy. It's unlikely to be challenged, and it isn't defamatory, so it passes WP:BURDEN. The only motive we have is to play it safe and we've done that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Year Graduatiion

In 1995, I had accumulated enough credits to graduate in mid-year. This was necessary because I was then 47 and needed to get back to work on books and magazine articles. UCB routinely (then) provided for mid-year graduation. I asked the NSC person with whom I talked about the so-called boastful items--my being awarded High Honors in history, and what they called Distinction in General Scholarship--but she told me that the institutions don't record that information on the forms they provide to NSC. If anyone cares enough, he/she could contact the Berkeley History department where I think they keep records of this stuff, and where they also kept a copy of my honors thesis. Just FYI, and not relevant to the listing on the page. Oh--I'm in discussion with Matthew Miles, Managing Editor of Cycle World, about an article on the Wikipedia motorcycle project. I'll advise as/when a decision is made. Ttrider87 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Bio Info from "Contemporary Authors Online" by Gale

Please note that the latest (3 Sept. 2017) edit of my personal data is incorrect, specifically my "residence". I left Bethesda, MD in 1987, and latest update to the listing data for me as an author in Contemporary Authors Online has the correct information, so please update the listing accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis! Might be of interest that I also received a "Maggie" award in '75 for "Most Improved Magazine" (for Road Test Magazine) as editor-in-chief. This was verified by my former managing editor, Dick Falk, who says he attended the awards banquet and brought back the actual award trophy to our editorial and advertising offices at the time. The records of the WPA don't go back to the '70s, though, so providing an online verification available to the public is not possible. Just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)