Talk:Terry Goodkind

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Talk:Terry Goodkind/Archive 1

Introduction

I have added the nessary citation link from the "Verifiable source" for the number of books sold world wide. Though that number was published back on 02/16/05 and the number is much larger now, I'm comfortable with that number. mystar24.236.196.174 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was wondering if you could clear up another issue here, though. The recently-released press release about Sam Raimi's interest in filming The Sword of Truth series is quoted as saying that the series has sold 10 million copies in 20 languages. This would seem to conflict with the above figure. Are you aware of an explanation for this discrepency?--Werthead 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes I am aware of an explanation :)and the fact that it annoys you to no end is just bonus! Mystar

Erm...and what is this explanation?--Werthead 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information from Tor Books' Director of Publicity Agent Elena Stokes Russell Galen on 24/7/06: "Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print." http://www.prophets-inc.com/news/

I'll forebear from putting up this quote in addition to the 50 million one on the front page until Mystar produces an explanation for this discrepency, if he is able to do so.--Werthead 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work

This page needs major work. I am going to commit some time to it, and I hope others will do the same.

I agree with whoever said the above. You can not use the author's own website to justify the greatness of a book. That's like asking Exxon to defend their environmental agenda. Obviously the author thinks his stuff is great. If you are friends with Terry Goodkind, or perhaps the author himself, maybe you should think about letting someone who is slightly more objective edit the page. Provide (verifiable) facts, but not opinions. And in general, the author's word isn't the best source of information - if he was a formula one racer, find an independent verification. I can say I'm an astronaut or have psychic powers, but until someone shows a picture of me in space or I've got a million dollar cheque from James Randi, it's just my opinion. Anyway, I also edited out most of the back and forth in the discussion page, I tried to leave in the relevant stuff that was actually a discussion or a call for more content.

Career section

I removed the bestselling author from the career section, as the only reference was his personal webpage. I removed the 'driven to excel' part because it seems pretty irrelevant to the article. I also changed the grammar a bit to clean it up. I took out the 'artist first and foremost' because that is the author's opinion, not verifiable fact. Plus, who cares?

Influence section

I took out most of this because the second sentence starts with a 'weasel word', then goes on again to talk about what the author thinks. Again, wiki is for encyclopedic stuff, not a chance for the author to sound off. That's what his webpage is for. Plus, it makes TG sound very extreme, and more than a bit crazy.

Fantasy author or novelist section

I took out the 'changed the face of fantasy' bit 'cause it's just his opinion, and this kind of thing can only be seen 10-20 years after the fact. I did leave in the 'his novels dealt primarily with human thought and emotion' bit because he is talking about his novels. Of course, since most novels deal with human thought and emotion, this is kind of redundant, but whatever. I also added the second paragraph, 'cause it seems pretty obvious.

First of all, please don't simply remove other's comments from the talk page. Some consider it irritating, and it's really not necessary; when the page gets too long, it can be archived or refactored.

As for your article edits, you're thinking in the right direction, but I do have concerns. It's a bit silly to remove the "bestselling author" mention, since he is one; a better source is necessary, and I'll add one shortly, but generally instead of removing accurate content that lacks a good source you should just request such a source. "Driven to excel" is a bit excessive, and I'll remove it again myself shortly. "Artist first and foremost" is indeed the author's opinion, which is why it's labelled as such; I think it's worth inclusion, as it presents some of his perspective, which I think is of clear relevance to an article on the man. It needs a specific source, though, as I don't see anything along that line on any of the cited sources.

In the "Influence" section, the claim of preaching also needs a source; I'll tag it shortly. Again, I think Goodkind's own comments on his work are part of a good encyclopedic article on the man. It's not our responsibility to keep him from looking extreme, but to accurately reflect the verifiable facts about him.

"Changed the face of fantasy" once more falls into the relevance of the author's opinions on the genesis and function of his work. Deleting his opinions is not good encyclopedic policy; they're as relevant to the article as any commentary. Your second paragraph about fitting conventions, while true, is not really our judgment to make, and smacks of POV. Brendan Moody 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added cited content and material. As for the "Career section", I and a great many people care! He is after all a NYT #1 best seller. it matters. mystar68.188.220.8

Regarding Mystar's Edits

Mystar, I understand your desire to reduce clutter on the talk page, and thanks for trying to help. However, please don't delete large sections of the talk page. Instead of deleting, archive the sections instead, that way people will be able to access the discusions if they desire without having to see them all on the main talk page. Deleting large portions of text, even on the talk page, is considered by many to be vandalism. Just wanted to let you know. - Runch 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahhhhh My bad, I didn't know anything about archiving. I'm just not up on all this new fangled stuff! I would suggest that someone please archive several sections as they are really meaningless and not pertinate to the subject at hand. The page is too cluttered with things that are not of any importMystar

Your opinion on what is and what is not of any import is irrelevant. It is also clear that you are familiar with Wikipedia usage policy and procedure based on your above dispute with Alienus. Thus your decision to remove large amounts of text including my questions regarding sales was clearly pre-meditated. Any further action of this sort will resort in a formal complaint to the moderators about your conduct. I suggest you modify your behaviour accordingly.--Werthead 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a policy note, when a talk page is archived, it is done so based upon the date of the postings, not the subjective "importance". On Wikipedia, all discussion is equally important, and respect for everyone's opinions is a key issue. Regarding this talk page, it really doesn't need any archiving yet. In my experience, most talk pages aren't archived until they reach 75+ KB in length; this one is only at about 45 KB. - Runch 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Worthead, I "didn't get caught by the mods" I made a choice to remove a considerable amount of drivel, pertinent (in your eyes) or not simply takes up a good deal of space and is really nothing but POV/opinion that has nothing to do with Goodkind’s POV or works. If the admins/powers that be wish it to stay, fine. As for Wikipedia, I'm simply learning the ropes. As for your "Your opinion on what is and what is not of any import is irrelevant", sorry you again show not only your ignorance but just how much this truly gets under your skin and keeps you up at night. Any Changes I make are relevant and important, as they are specifically discussed with Goodkind. Further, even in the event they were not (you'll no doubt have another red-faced tirade on your home page at this but who cares), "MY" opinion is justly as important of not more so as my facts are accurate and accurately backed with fact in print and reference. I suggest you keep that in mind next time.

As for Al, yes we see what happened to him didn't we... You cannot go on a personal crusade to discredit and besmirch someone page and not be taken to task for it. Al got what I, and a great many feel he more than deserved.

As you most likely are not aware of (and we know that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of that issue), is that I have been in contact with Runch and a few others with respect to making significant additions and changes in bringing Goodkind’s page up to standards and up to date, eliminating the so called speculation and nonsense items. Oh one last thing, you have no authority here anymore that I or any one of the myriad of users, your "I suggest you modify your behavior" is a laughable cliché and hollow threat... Any "complaints" are welcome and encouraged, they will fall on def ears as I have committed no offences, but go ahead. Keep us amused at your inability to fathom truth and integrity Mystar 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Mystar, I know you have the best of intentions regarding the Terry Goodkind page here on Wikipedia, but you need to be able to respect other people's ability to edit the page. The recent edits made by Brendan Moody were perfectly legitimate. Citations really are needed for sweeping statements such as: "Terry Goodkind has been called one of the most phenomenally successful new fantasy writers of the 1990s". With a citation that leads you to the individual(s) that made the statement, the statement suddenly becomes credible.

Also, Goodkind is not best known for his paintings; he is, at least now, best known for his Sword of Truth series. As a result, I think Brendan Moody's edits on this section should remain as well.

I welcome discussion on the subject, but please keep it civil. Thanks, Runch 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanx Runch, I appericate your help

And they in turn should respect my edits as well. The fact that Goodkind is most notably known "now" for his Sword of Truth Series is only what has occurred "now". He was (as I had stated) first and foremost an artist, which he will also attest to at this point. He "was" most notably known. It didn't need to be changed. If Moody wished to add that his recent notoriety is that of the Author of the Sword of Truth Series, fine, but Moody changed what was the emphasis of Goodkind's work up to that point.

As for the Citation needed, Again I disagree, as all anyone has to do is to read the reviews of that specific time. The fact that someone now wishes to say, "oh I can't get past that with out needing to be pointed in the right direction" is just silly.

~shrugs~

I suppose we should also then require a citation for every statement then, Goodkind went to school..., Goodkind dropped out of Collage. I mean what if he didn't! What if he kept going, I think it need a citation...OH and We simply must put a citation on the fact that Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand. ;p my point being we can citation to death and it looks like that is going to happen. The simply fact is Goodkind has been so stated over and over again, as holding still to date the record for the highest paid manuscript of a first time author for the U. S. rights. And Goodkind had held it since the publication of Wizards First Rule. Perhaps we should also place that on his main page, as it is not only verifiable but not in dispute by any publisher or agency.

I welcome changes, but when we get to a point when the changes are nothing so much as trolling looking to add contrib’s to get a leg up, it is a bit ridiculous. But I’m just one lone person…btw doesn’t Goodkind have any say on what he wishes his own page to say?

Mystar 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the painting. Your description of what the article used to say is incorrect, and it did need changing. What the article said before my initial alteration was "Terry Goodkind is an artist first and foremost. Most notably he is known for his realistic marine and wildlife paintings." This is confusing phrasing for someone described in the article lead as a writer. I have no objection to the article mentioning that Goodkind paints, or that his paintings are popular and acclaimed, or that prior to his books being published he was best known as a painter, provided that these facts have verifiable sources attached to them. Everything in a Wikipedia article should, so, although you intended the comment ironically, "we should also then require a citation for every statement."

Everything, by the way, includes statements like "Terry Goodkind has been called one of the most phenomenally successful new fantasy writers of the 1990s." Regardless of your personal feelings, it is not enough to say "all anyone has to do is to read the reviews of that specific time;" the verifiability policy says that sources should be cited whenever possible. Since the phrase seems to refer to a specific quote, finding a source, or a similar quote that makes the same point, should hardly be that difficult.

You can indeed add the information about Goodkind's advance if you can source it; I've seen it in a couple reputable sources myself, so it's definitely appropriate in principle.

The rest of your comments are unnecessarily rude and violate the policy regarding civility and the one requiring users to assume good faith. Brendan Moody 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "phenomenally successful" is that it is used in such a vast manor it no longer holds the meaning I think you wish to make it seem. While it is possible to dig up several reviews and articles offering that exacting verbage, it isn't like it needs verifying. Lets take a walk through any search engine for the sake of time and effort we will limit our search to google. I widely used and much like Wikipedia, for the most part respected... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Terry+Goodkind+phenomenally+successful&btnG=Search

Paging through the hundreds of pages we find hundreds of uses for the term "phenomenally successful".

I guess I need ask, to which do you need citation? That someone somewhere wrote it? That someone somewhere said it? That someone somewhere printer it, referred to it, referenced it, or is it just plausible enough that "phenomenally successful" can stand on its own merits in that the person having any "success" is a phenomenon. Or perhaps that the term "phenomenally successful" means that he is read world wide with millions of sales... Personally I think that is citation enough, but that's just "my humble opinion". Oh and please note I'm making a "matter of fact" statement. Please try not to read any inference of emotion I am not placing in my post. Were I to be offended or injecting rudeness I would most assuredly apprise you of it. I may well not have the astounding abilities to interject the exact inference you think I am offering; I am simply stating what I see as the situation. Then again, people will usually only see what they expect to see.

Mystar 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you think I wish to make "phenomenally successful" seem to mean; I'm not even sure how its meaning is particularly disputable. None of the Google search results (which cover eight pages, not hundreds) for "Terry Goodkind phenomenally successful" actually use the phrase "phenomenally successful" to refer to Goodkind himself, except quotes from Wikipedia and its mirrors. This doesn't matter anyway, as simply pulling a source from a Google search is not good enough. When you write in an encyclopedia article that someone's works have been labelled successful, you expect the label to come from some notable source, like a critic or a journalist or a publisher or something. A citation of that sort is what we would need. See the policy on reliable sources.

If all the point you want to make is that Goodkind is read worldwide with millions of sales... the article already says that. Do we need a quote to reiterate it, especially one that has no apparent source and uses weasel words like "has been called?"

However you intended the comment "when we get to a point when the changes are nothing so much as trolling looking to add contrib’s to get a leg up, it is a bit ridiculous," calling others' contributions "trolling" and suggesting that they contribute "to get a leg up" is uncivil and imputes bad faith, both of which are clearly disallowed by policy. Please don't do it again. Brendan Moody 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point being that the phrase "phenomenally successful” is used to death with out any supporting source, as we can see in any simple search on any search engine. My point is that you seem to be picking at nits here. It is something people say, write and refer to when speaking of or about something or someone that has better than normal success. That is what we are dealing with here even though the application has been said and has been in print for years.

I read hundreds of articles needing (according to you then) citations and have been left untouched. I guess I am forced to wonder what suddenly precipitated the "oh my gosh, we simply can't allow that to stand with out a citation what were we thinking" efforts in eliminating information. ~shrugs~ I see a great deal of “bad faith” and “uncivil” behavior on Wikipedia. This is why it has such a horrendous reputation for editing wars and quarreling admins. Mystar 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Quibble

Just curious Werthead, but what's the big deal? I can see that sometimes people have a question and would like verification on issues. To me, it looks like you are trying to do nothing more than discredit Mr. Goodkind and Mystar. What do you care if he's sold 10 or 50 million books? You seem to be putting entirely too much energy into this for somebody who doesn't seem to like the books. Merrit

I'm not contesting the fact that Goodkind was an artist of marine and wildlife paintings before he became a novelist, but we should try to find another source for the information to replace the current citation. (The current citation was added by Mystar, who is also the webmaster of terrygoodkind.net). Again, I'm not disputing it, but if we could get another bio stating the same it would give the statement added credibility. - Runch 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Author or Novelist?

In the section in the article entitled Fantasy Author or Novelist?, I'd like to add some counter arguments. Currently, this section is extremely one sided, only presenting Terry Goodkind's view that the series is not fantasy, when it most clearly is part of the fantasy genre.

Normally, I would just add content to the article as necessary, but I find that this particular article is often the source of heated debate, so I figured I would post my intentions first. It seems to me that often, despite the exceptional level of civility on Wikipedia as a whole, posts to this particular article cause great distress among certain individuals. - Runch 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings on the matter is that, as said above, this section is almost completely dictated by Terry Goodkind, and I find it quite questionable that he be the one to determine this section despite the fact that he is the author and therefore has a vested interest in the topic at hand. I think it's a conflict of interest, and a fairly obvious one. I also think that the conflict of interest extends throughout much of the article - Terry Goodkind, or Mystar, who seems to be a close friend of his, is doing a lot of the editing, introducing a strong POV into the article. By consistently inserting snippets of what Terry Goodkind thinks, we get an extension of Terry Goodkind's thoughts and feelings. In other words, a blog rather than an encyclopedic entry. The fact that Mystar, or whoever, keeps putting in bits from interviews by him means we are consistently getting quotes and opinon. In most referencing (at least for the social sciences where I have experience) quotes are used *extremely* sparingly, it is mostly 3rd person references. I think it's a good policy, especially when there is not the peer review to keep people honest (although arguably wikipedia is nothing but peer review and honesty can be seen as dictated through longevity over time). I think the excessive use of quotes unfairly biases the article in the direction of what the author wants, which is again, a conflict of interest. The ideas like 'not a fantasy writer' and 'deals with human thoughts and emotions' come directly from Terry Goodkind - until I put in the ideas that a) he uses magic, swords and fantastic creatures and b) EVERY novel in the world that has human or human-like protagonists deals with thoughts and emotions. If it's got characters, they are thinking and feeling. I have problems with these two issues, here are my reasons:

Someone coming in having never read any of his works may get the idea that somehow he is writing historical fiction or contemporary novels because of that 'not a fantasy' line. Then they pick up the books, find out that there is not just magic, but multiple types of magic, melee combat, mythical creatures and all the other tropes of fantasy.

Quoting wikipedia itself: Fantasy is a genre of art that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting

and quoting www.yourdictionary.com a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. b. An example of such fiction

and quoting another on-line dictionary, (dictionary.laborlawtalk.com) Perhaps the most common sub-genres of fantasy--or at least most commonly associated with the term "Fantasy"--are sword and sorcery and high fantasy, two closely related forms that typically describe tales featuring magic, brave knights, damsels in distress, and/or quests, set in a world or worlds quite different from modern-day Earth and usually inhabited by mythical creatures such as dragons and unicorns.

Therefore, T.G. saying he is not writing fantasy and having nothing to present the other side is baised, and presents a false image of the books. Unless he starts phrasing things in terms of mental abilities (i.e. psionics, telepathy, telekinesis) or machine-based 'magic' (both of which would move the SoT series into the realm of Science Fiction, which he may also presumably write is inaccurate) he writes fantasy, cover art being irrelevant to the discussion. He may think that he doesn't write fantasy, and can say so on his personal webpage and in interviews and whatnot, but by a widely accepted definition, it fits into fantasy. Irrespective of what he wants, that is the fact of the matter.

Regarding thoughts and feelings, again, EVERY book with a human-like protagonist deals with thoughts and feelings. His books are not special in this regard. Irrespective of what he is trying to do with his books (apparently preach objectivism - why not just produce a reader's guide to The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged if that's the most important thing about your work, or publish in academic journals dedicated to philosophy?) his books do not have special or unique license to say that HIS books deal with thoughts and feelings, while others do not. I'd either like it taken out, or have a comment inserted saying that it is unclear how this is different from any other. I put it in, it was not sarcastic, it is obvious. Though apparently I am alone in thinking this, so I won't put it back.

Also, overall I find that the entry spends a lot of time in near-shameless self-promotion (or perhaps other promotion, if he is not doing the editing himself). It's a bit better now, but I still think that the link to his agency webpage as a source is questionable and that the 6 times normal price thing is almost bragging. And again, stuff like

Goodkind says, "I believe in writing books that inspire and uplift people. The purpose of a good novel is to provide the reader with an example of values realized….People don't want to be told that they're miserable, wretched, destructive, evil creatures. The typical person isn't interested in reading that. They want to read books about other people they can look up to, people that inspire them, people who make them feel that life is worth living.

is almost bragging, and doesn't really add much to it. The fact that I did not like Wizard's First Rule may be biasing my judgement, but I think the suggestions and comments I've made above stand on their own merit. - MB

Fair points, but that would require a serious overhaul, not just a few barbs here and there like it was when I edited it. But I agree in principle that self-promotion is not wanted, and that TG does not have any right in determining what appears on this page and what does not, apart from correcting factual inaccuracies. Paul Willocx 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did an attempt at writing a section that fitted the heading more. Comments appreciated. Paul Willocx 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, But I think you need to rethink your reasoning here. Have you read any other authors page? I think not. You will not find any "argumentative" content on any GRRM's page, Erickson or any other fantasy author for that matter. Simply because you wish to place something of a dissenting voice questioning Goodkind or his views in is not what Wikipedia is about. This is a page "about" Terry Goodkind. It is not a page for people to plaster up arguments to his philosophy or his values. I read much of Martin's page and see almost exactly the same material and wording...so it's "OK" for GRRM, but not Goodkind? Sorry Wikipedia doesn't allow double standards. I read Erickson's page...same stuff.

So just because you have a problem with Goodkind or his bragging rights doesn't give you the right to omit proper information. That is considered vandalism. mystar68.188.220.8 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find any argumentative content on those other pages because those authors don't make a point of putting philosophical arguments in their books - they write for entertainment rather than to further a philosophy (natch, even TG is doing both, it's not just philosophical rabble-rousing. It is funny to see how he is imitating Ayn Rand though, she did the same thing in Atlas Shrugged). I've read Erikson's and Martin's (I'm also a fan of both, but I'm not posting propoganda on their pages). On SE page, "His style of writing tends towards complex plots with many point-of-view characters." and "Erikson has stated explicitly that he attempts to avoid the standard conventions of fantasy, and deliberately began the Malazan Book of the Fallen series in the midst of an ongoing story rather than beginning with a more conventional opening." could be considered unsourced, but it has also stood the test of time in Wikipedia - no users have edited or removed them, showing passive acknowledgement of its accuracy. Recently one comment which I agreed with "The books to date are of high quality in language and tone, being both able to stand alone as separate novels, as well as being intricately linked to other volumes." was removed, but I see the point the editor was trying to make. So I left it, even though I think it is pertinent. Your edits get removed all the time by contrast. As for GRRM, "This story, and many of Martin's others, have a strong sense of melancholy. His characters are often unhappy, or at least unsatisfied.", "The Brotherhood Without Banners is sometimes known among other fans as "George's Cult", because of their highly enthusiastic and evangelistic nature", and "However, the group is not a formal organization and all George R.R. Martin fans are considered 'spiritual' members even if they have not registered" could be considered, at a stretch, biased or unsourced. Since I haven't been visiting his page that often, I can't comment on their longevity. TG does not get bragging rights on wikipedia, this is not the venue to brag. He can (and does - heart of a 20 year old, HA!) on his personal website or in forums, or at conventions etc etc etc. The point being, GRRM and SE do not have philosophical soapboxing going on, or bragging. This page does. The constant editing to include positive information while removing anything that is remotely critical, looks like bragging to me. Same with everyone else who keeps changing the entry to be less biased. Although I must say it gradually does seem to be a better entry, measured in mustard seeds.

Ha! I read the tutorial 198.96.2.93 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Edits by Mystar

Mystar, aka IP 68.188.220.8, the recent edits made to the Terry Goodkind article were not vandalism. You can't revert them just because you didn't like the fact that the editor changed what you had initially written. In fact, reverting the edits in such a way IS considered vandalism.

Look Mystar, I still firmly believe that you want to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community, but it is obvious by your edit history that you just don't know how to go about doing so. I've looked at your contributions - and roughly 90% or more of them involve edits to Terry Goodkind and this talk page. If you're ever going to learn Wikipedia protocol and etiquette, I urge you to branch out. Look at other articles. Read help pages. Contribute and be involved in more than one topic. For starters, I'd suggest looking at some of these pages:

Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset - A simple rule book for new editors
Wikipedia:Vandalism - Defines what is and what is not vandalism
Help:Reverting - Lets you know when to use the revert function
Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot - Tips on how to discuss issues on talk pages
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - PLEASE read this help page. It is very pertinent to you.

In addition, you may want to look at some articles on authors that have reached featured article status. Although Terry Goodkind is unique, looking at some of these articles may help you understand the direction in which we want to move for the article on Goodkind. Examples: Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Douglas Adams, to name a few.

I hope you actually do take the time to look into some (or all) of the pages I have pointed out to you. They may help you become less possessive of this particular page on Goodkind, and I'm sure expanding your horizons will help you become a better Wikipedian.

Sincerely, Runch 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edit in question that mystar reverted was indeed not vandalism, but it did add a few rather dubious things in the article which I have now attempted to correct. Firstly, there is the "essential sense of the word [sic]" thing - it is already inside a direct quote from TG, I see no reason for additional quote marks, nor do I understand what the "sic" is doing there. Secondly, the "though how this differs from any other novel is uncertain" or something to that extent; I don't think sarcastic commentary belongs in a Wikipedia article. If we are to discuss the credibility of Goodkind's statements, which I do not think is the intention of this article anyway, then surely we can find a more elegant way than just adding comments of that kind inbetween the quotations.

I would assume that with those edits made, mystar has no further reason to revert as the rest of that edit seemed good.

Paul Willocx 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, thanks for your revisions. - Runch 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sic was there because he said 'word' when it refers to two words - fantasy author.

198.96.2.93 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call them "misguided" if you wish. That is really y too bad is this IS Goodkind's page and I have edited according to HIS wishes.

In response to Runch, I have looked about a great deal, and have followed what is seen of GRRM's page, Erickson's page, ASOFAI page as well. If you wish to remove such information on their pages then do so, but you will find that everything I have added is in like manor the same material on other pages.

Simply because someone doesn't feel something fits doesn't mean it isn't pertinent or germane. I have sourced the material, I have placed it accordingly as it fits to the knowledge and understanding of this page.

As I've said in the past, Wikipedia is an OPEN format and is also so stated that editing will be done. I have acted in good faith and have place appropriate and good solid information. I'm simply adding appropriate content. The fact that someone doesn’t wish for Goodkind to look good or be place in a positive light is not my problem. What is my concern is adding the proper spin and pertinent info! mystar68.188.220.8 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem, as evidenced in your comment when reverting my last edit, is that you believe TG should have the right to decide what is on this page. Guess what, he doesn't. Haven't you read all the fuss about the US Congress members who tried to edit out offending information out of their Wikipedia pages? Didn't work, either. As a fantasy author, TG is considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and as such, the Wikipedia contributors determine what is on his page and what is not, not himself.

This is not a page for Goodkind to promote himself or to preach to his audience, it's an article in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which is supposed to give as objective a view as possible on him. :Paul Willocx 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what mystar, he's right. This is not TG page, it's a wikipedia page. You aren't adding information, you are adding opinion, TG's opinion. And TG's opinion of his own work isn't the best source when you are talking about its quality. He can talk about what he wants to accomplish, what he is trying to show (or rather someone else should do it for him), but saying how great his own work is, this is not the place. A couple further points:

"I have sourced the material, I have placed it accordingly as it fits to the knowledge and understanding of this page." - you have sourced the author's own webpage, or his agent, or an online chat. Sometimes this is appropriate, other times it is not. The times it is not, it is removed. If it's still there, it's 'cause it's in a good contextual location.

"As I've said in the past, Wikipedia is an OPEN format and is also so stated that editing will be done. " - open format doesn't mean no standards. Peer reviewers are the standards, and your peers are disagreeing with you. Outright. By removing things. I've posted crap in the past - if it was good and relevant (like the fantasy tropes) it stayed but was modified. If it wasn't, it was removed, as it should have been.

"I have acted in good faith and have place appropriate and good solid information. I'm simply adding appropriate content." - No, you're promoting something that you are too baised to be neutral about. It's not information, it's opinion, mostly TG's opinion, which is not appropriate for Wiki. It is inappropriate content.

"The fact that someone doesn’t wish for Goodkind to look good or be place in a positive light is not my problem. What is my concern is adding the proper spin and pertinent info!" - this page is NOT meant to place him in a good light, it is to place him in a neutral light. That means praise and criticism, if sourced, and otherwise just information. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ADDING SPIN AT ALL. Pertinent info is OK.

"Well...guess what! I am a fan and I do get to decide what I see as fit. As I haev so stated, I've added sourced into and pertinate info. It has every right to stand, as it would be exactly the materian found in an encyclopedia. That IS and always has been my point!" - I'm not a fan, and I'm trying to tone down the critical edits I've made in the past. My bad, now I'm learning (thanks Paul Willocx, is that a mis-spelling?). You have added dubious information and sources. An agent is not the best place to go to get certain types of information, and a personal webpage is almost certainly not. Especially when that webpage doesn't back up your statement (what he was best known for before SoT - painting. First of all, it is to his personal webpage. Second, it doesn't even refernce that he was well known for it)

As Willocx (must be a typo) says below, you are not the sole editor of the page. His points are excellent, and I am really only re-stating them in more detail in the 5 points above. BTW, having trouble with the editing, should be a numbered list of 1-5

198.96.2.93 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Wikipedia consensus decides. And the Wikipedia consensus has decided a number of things, among others that Wikipedia isn't supposed to take any particular PoV (which would be why both the prevailing opinion that SoT is fantasy, and Mr. Goodkind's assertion that it is not are included), that it is not a soapbox, and so on. Just because you can source something doesn't mean it's notable or should be on the page. As for your Martin and Erikson comments, I've just gone and read both of their pages, and I saw nothing that looked biased. A few comments on "dark themes" and the like in Martin, and something about the complexity in Erikson, but both of those are objective facts - comparable to the fact that there is a strong Objectivist theme in SoT. And I didn't see either Martin or Erikson using their Wikipedia article to preach their views, nor do they try to determine what is on their page and what isn't. Paul Willocx 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh yes! "Just because you can source something doesn't mean it's notable or should be on the page". The ole "do what I say not what I do, double standard eh!

You allow the same content on GRRM's etc page. I see Paul or is it Worthead? I see that you are the ASOFAI fanatic and as such allow this same content there, but cannot stand for it of Goodkind's page. I hope you can explain yourself. Suddenly out of the blue you trash Goodkind’s page. SO just because you have edited a couple of GRRM's pages...that makes you the "consensus"? Sorry bub, that outs you and your two other buddies. You want to cause havoc, and they your get a couple of other ASOFAI buddies to back you up. That is in no way any kind of "consensus". All anyone has to do is to look at the history of you guys and see the truth. You see nothing that looks "biased" because you are a fanatic of the page and want the bias there. It suites you, your buddies and GRRM as well. The fact is it is loaded with bias and POV. You cannot have it both ways dude. You have not acted in good faith or in an unbiased manor

mystar68.188.220.8 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The edit warring on this page really has gotten to the point where it needs to be dealt with. I'd like to draw everyone's attention to: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Steps one and two (discussion and trying to "wait out the war") have proved ineffective, so at this point I'm going to make a request for informal mediation. If that proves ineffective in stopping the problems, I'm going to make a request for a formal mediation session. Should both of those steps prove ineffective, I will request arbitration, although I hope it need not come to that.

Regardless of the way, I hope to finally put an end to this conflict. - Runch 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable.198.96.2.93 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer and someone who has not invested any real time editing the TG article it would seem you are already at the point of needing moderation. Mystar is admittedly acting as Terry Goodkind's mouth piece and has taken the position of doing what ever it takes to change this article into what he and TG want it to be, breaking several rules along the way despite repeated warnings from some very patient editors. This is not TG's article, it is everybody's artilce about TG. NeoFreak 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the informal mediators a couple of days to see if they can help, but yes, I do forsee myself having to make a formal request for moderation or arbitration in the near future. - Runch 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is simple. Paul Willocx, NeoFreak is suddenly pissed off because I edited something and asked for some citations on A song of fire and ice. It has several NPOV sections, yet he seems to think that’s..."ok" simply because he likes GRRM and ASOFAI. So because he, worthead and a couple of ASOFAI/BWOB fans dislike Goodkind so intensely they must rape Goodkind's page. It’s really that simple. Read the history. They recoil at anything about Goodkind being shown in any positive light. They only wish adverse information to be placed. Neo, worthead et al, have all shown their true intent here.

I've not stated my opinion about Goodkind's works here (or to my memory) anywhere else and I'm sorry you've interpreted my attempts to inprove this artilce and conform it to wikipedia's standards as an attempt to "rape" the article. NeoFreak

So Wikipedia is "consensus", I only see two to three people being this so-called consensus. The page was fine...no problems since AL got himself booted... Worthead kept his two cents in the ring, but was also showing his true colors by trying to eliminate anything positive. I can source pages of worthead over at ASOFAI's home page talking about his campaign against Goodkind on Wikipedia.

If worthead has shown any dislike of Goodkind and you feel that he is not editing with good intention than by all means, present this should it go to mediation. NeoFreak

They suddenly! Up pops out of the blue, in pops someone most likely worthead under a new IP/name who had never before touched anything Goodkind, then he is suddenly the "consensus" and making major changes to the page. And lo, but who should come to his rescue another ASOFAI fanatic, Paul Willocx (or should I say worthead), Neo and Runch. Telling indeed! I hardly thing these people are "unbiased"... their edit sheet reads like a book. "We hate anything Goodkind".

Again I've not stated my opinion of Goodkind and my intention here is to improve this article, not wage a campaign against Mr. Goodkind or his good name. Further a review of talk pages and IP addresses will reaveal that, unless I'm engaged in an elaborate anti-Goodkind conspiracy and am in the habit of talking to myself, I am in fact, not werthead or any other person on this site but NeoFreak. I have no sockpuppets and am here on no one's volition but my own. NeoFreak

I would disagree. Anytime you edit anything Goodkind and it is reverted, one of your sockpuppets pops up to reinforce it and call it "consensus" mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you would call me a liar without any evidence or knowledge of me or my character but all I can do is tell you I have no agenda but to improve this artilce and conform it to wikipedia standards and policies. NeoFreak

Secondly, I am not a "mouth piece" for or of Goodkind. Yes, I read him much of what is on here and we talk about it. SO WHAT? and BOOM! Suddenly because I say Goodkind liked something, then NEO is incensed and declares it MUST be stopped! How dare we allow anything Goodkind likes! How dare he read and like his page! We cannot allow ANYTHING that Goodkind approves of to stay on his page!

As you have discused werthead's comments outside of this site I think it only fair to now point out that you have declared on other sites that your are the "representative" of Mr. Goodkind and act in his intrests as he has no internet connection himself. In addition you are a personal friend and are an active organizer of fanclubs and events for Mr Goodkind. Addionaly I would ask that you do not put words into my mouth. My attention to this site was in fact attracted by your edits of the George RR Martin page after a review of your contribution history. After you raised issues with the wording of the artilce you might be intrested to know that I, and other editors, agreed with your "point" and changes were made. NeoFreak

And here you have just validated my point. You are only acting (along with your sockpuppets in a retaliatory strike for editing some NPOV on GRRM's page. I rest my case. mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I do not follow your train of logic here. I wanted to understand you and where you weere coming from a little better and I reviewed your contribution history, which lead me here. I'm sorry that you interpret this as evidenefc of "retaliation" or an "anti-Goodkind conspiracy". I can only give you my assurance otherwise. NeoFreak

I have never made any attempt not cover the fact that I am Terry's friend or discuss on-line things with him. That however in no way makes me his "mouth piece" I might point out that using such a has specific meaning and negative tones. You have the audacity to admonish me for a supposed tone or words, I would also respond in kind then. mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "direct representitive" be more palatable? NeoFreak

Puhlease! Get a life eh! I do hope you or anyone is not so mentally impaired that they think that GRRM, Erickson, Bakker et al, do not visit and discuss their pages with they friends! I do hope you are not dumb enough that you don't think they do not also edit. Fact is this. Goodkind GRRM or anyone has as much right to edit their own page and anyone else. I see no "rule" stating that because a page has their name on it they are banned from editing, they would be a violation of the rules and the First Amendment.

First off I would just like to point out that I have remained very civil, even cordial, with you and would appreciate if you could reciprocate this behavior. We are both adults and adults most often are capable of disscussion and debate without having to resort to name calling as it is unconstructinve, immature and agaist wikipedia policy. Secondly, George RR Martin has made the comment many times that he avoids all online forums about him and his work outside of his own ofical site as it interfears with his creative process. NeoFreak

I for one prefer to think of myself as an honest and moral man, I saw/see nothing civil in any of your commentary toward me, quite the contrary. I see you assuming "superiority" in tone from me. That would be entirely a failing on your part, as I have not taken any such tone. I suggest you stop attempting to read me as you feel you would be replying. A common mistake with this media, but I assure you I am nothing but concerned for proper content and eliminating the use of harmful editing and sockpuppets to back up such vandalism. I also disagree about your GRRM statement. He can say anything he wishes. We have no proof of its validity. Anyone can say anything they wish. mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have been calling other editors liars and idiots and accusing them of having dishonest intentions without any proof. Your tone has been hostile and condesending but if that was not your intention then we can get past that. NeoFreak

I will edit when I see a need. I have every right to add content if I deem it worthy. I see someone come along and mass edit something that has been up for a long time and I revert it, and then "I'm" labels the vandal? I think not. I welcome a neutral mediation...IF one can be found with out ties to these vandals.

I very much encourage you to be bold in your editing but if other editors have a reason to make changes and/or reversions please accept that they too have a say and your issues are best worked out in civil discourse and a review of policy, not by attacks, accusations and name calling. NeoFreak

Simply put, your/their edits may not be in the best interest of the information as they/you have ulterior motives. I do think seeing as I have an infinite amount of correct and accurate information, I'm better suited to judge what it correct information or not. Simply because you do not like the author (have you even read his works of all of them), and you feel empowered to edit away, in no way makes your edit correct. So my replacing proper and accurate information would then be the proper and correct action mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Reasearch is not allowed on wikipedia but your personal relationship with Mr. Goodkind could be very helpful in pointing editrs toward resources they can cite in this article. Your unsourced opinion is irrelevant and Mr. Goodkind through you as well. Again only sourced information is allowed on Wikipedia. Your opinion is no more valid than anybody mine or any other editor. Period. NeoFreak

I may not be up on Wikipedia or all of its inner workings codes etc. I do not intend to spend my valuable time sorting it out to please the likes of fanatics who are only looking to do harm to someone's page they do not like. I see some major hypocrisy going on here, not to mention a HUGE double standard.

Sir, if you find that you do not have the time to devote to learing the rules of this encylopedia then you might find your time better spent elsewhere. NeoFreak

And let people like you disparage others pages. I think not. I will do my best, that is all I can do. If it isn't good enough for you, I'm sorry. Its good enough for me and that is all that counts.

mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again please do not attack my character. If you have any complaints about my edits then take them to an admin. Aslo what is "good enough for you" is not neccisarily good enough for Wikipedia. NeoFreak

I will happily admit to early editing on TG's page because I did not like what was there. It was biased in a majorly negative way and had several negative POV content. As well as some major mis-information. I was not aware of just how things work...or the rational behind it. so sue me! I learned of what was happening to TG's Wiki page on westros message board where they were talking about thin very thing, vandalizing Goodkind's Wiki page. And we have seen a lot of it! One person was even banned when I presented proof to GRRM himself. I am not so easily fooled by supposed "I'm a neutral interested party, so I'm going to edit TG's page because it has positive content".

I appluad your corrective action of any vandal. Every page should conform to wikipedia rules and have a NPOV. NeoFreak

What I do ask for is fairness and honesty. But I will not be holding my breath as I wish to continue to live....

I’ve said time and time again, as “I” read the reason for Wiki is to be unbiased and “encyclopedic” in nature…. The is not a play ground for trolls to edit anything of a positive or impressive nature off of a page. When these people edit and it is reverted, they just call on their edit buddies to jump in the fray and back them up. I’m a bit more honest than that. Fact is you very rarely find many Goodkind fan’s on here, because they have better things to do with their lives…like LIVE them” than try to bash someone else. Goodkind’s fans are of a caliber that refuses to waste their time with such petty trolls Who only want to make TG look bad. Fact is they know better and are not bothered by it. They feel that these people show their true nature and lack of character by their actions. Really Goodkind fans and not your “fantasy” fanatic fans… That’s because Goodkind’s Novels appeal to a more mature mindset. One grips the mind of like-minded people with Honor and Morals. People who value ethics and hold they ground, while nobly avoiding such petty battles as these fanatics wage.

Again, please refrain from name calling and posts that relflect assumed superiority as it is unconstructive and doesn't help anyone. NeoFreak

MY only reason for editing is to place accurate and fair information. Something worthead, Paul Willocx (suddenly out of the wild blue), neo that is being fought against, and they are being allowed to win

mystar68.188.220.8 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again please refrain from these kind of attacks unless you are ready to take your issues to an admin. NeoFreak

I'm very happy that you desire to participate and help make this a better article. Your close relationship with Mr. Goodkind puts this article's potential in a realm far beyond most as you could prove to be an enourmous resource should you so choose to be one. I look forward to being able to edit with you in the future. NeoFreak 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, my close relationship is an asset to this page. But unless you've read all of Goodkind's works, all of his interviews, all of his Audio clips and all of his on camera appearances, I simply do not see you as being effective in any kind of editing. A person has to know the material they are working with. You have shown no idea of what Goodkind or his works is about. Sorry, but that is just my take on it.

mystar68.188.220.8 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that an editor that has not read or covered every piece of Terry Goodkind material is not capable or qualified to contribute to this artilce. I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way as it is unconstructive and contrary to what wikipedia is all about. Also please note that I have made minor edits to your posts here for ease of review and have not chaged the substance of any of your posts.

It is my belief at this point that there is no other option than to ask for an offical mediation. Would you be willing to engage in an offical mediation MyStar? NeoFreak 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, you've never read any Goodkind, so you have no knowledge of what his books espouse, and there fore you have no idea what materian is pertinate or not. Editing is one thing, but Wilcox and you have simply tried to remove content without knowing if it is pertinate or not. And you pop on right off the bat and remove logical content simply to amuse yourself...because you somehow think "you" are the "consensus".

As I've said, I'm an honest man, I see your contriving even if you refuse to admidt it. mystar68.188.220.8 12:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a couple of brief points.

First, although I admit I am a fan of A Song of Fire and Ice, I've never made a single edit to any of the associated articles on Wikipedia. I have done a fair amount of editing in literature, however, mostly on Brian Jacques' Redwall series, Glen Cook's Garrett P.I. and The Black Company series, and David Farland's Runelords saga.
I am most definitely not a sockpuppet. I think this would be fairly easy to deduce - everyone has their own writing style, and it's fairly easy to tell one person from another, even online.

My main statement is this: Although I can't speak for anyone else, I for one have read all of Terry Goodkind's novels (excepting Phantom - I'll get to it soon enough), and I am a big fan of TG's works. I do believe that they uplift and inspire. That's why I get up every morning and check my Wikipedia watchlist. That's why when I find a new discussion here on the talk page, I read it, and I formulate a response. That's why I try to use reason, Mystar. Because that's what Richard would do. He would use reason to convince you of what is right and wrong. He wouldn't resort to name calling, he wouldn't lose his cool - he would reason with you.

You ask others if they have read the Sword of Truth novels - have you read them, Mystar? If so, did you understand the messages within? Emperor Jagang rules over a cruel and wicked empire - do you think he would allow anyone to criticize him? Of course not. Richard is the one who fights for freedom, equality, and free will. Richard wouldn't try to silence his opposition, he wouldn't try to deny anyone the right to speak their mind. Instead, he would take criticism and use it to better himself and make himself a better person.

Saying that an article is non-point-of-view is just another way of saying that is has all points of view. I want Terry Goodkind's thoughts and opinions to be represented in this article, with facts and resources backing up what he has to say. I also want there to be opinions contrary to what Goodkind says, again with facts and resources backing up why this set of opinions might be true. If we provide the readers with all the information, then they will be able to make their own decisions. Let the people decide - that's what Richard would want.

Lastly, I respect TG's wishes as to what he wants posted in this article, but that doesn't mean that his quotations should be the only thing in the article. I have a hard time believing that Terry wants to squash all criticism of his series - that would make him no better than his antiheroes, and I'm pretty sure Terry has read and understood his own novels. - Runch 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, now that I have gotten what I wanted off my chest, I second the idea that we need official moderation. I'll make the formal request, unless you wish to do so, NeoFreak. - Runch 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you answering the question. Yes I have not only read each of Goodkind's novels (more than 5 times each), but have been fortunate enough to discuss each book for hours on end with Goodkind over the past several years. No one, least of all me, is attempting to "silence" any one. I am however one who believes that placing negative commentary just for the sake of having something negative is wrong. That has nothing what so ever to do with silencing opposition. This is an "INFORMATIONAL" page, "encyclopedic" in nature. It is not a page where critics get to blast away and remove positive content just because they do not like Goodkind or his works.

I made some edits and additions to the article which could be construed as "criticism", yet i feel they are in no way derogatory or negative. I hope you agree. I hope to be able to prove to you that criticism need not be rude or malicious, as long as it is done in a civil manner. Runch 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read Phantom (a book btw that I named), so I'll leave off some of my responses, as they would directly pertain to content within Phantom and What Richard is doing. You say "I also want there to be opinions contrary to what Goodkind says".... Let me remind you Gang rape is a conscious in action.... Let the people decide you say... the gang or people raping the poor woman would agree with you! I'm sorry; allowing biased people to place a slant against Goodkind is not only unproductive, but also improper.

I think you're making rather extreme comparisons here, but I digress. I'm not here to discuss the novels themselves, if I wished to do that I would do so on a messageboard. Runch 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Let the people decide - that's what Richard would want"... I guess you missed the yare where Kahlan admonished Richard not to take a vote! As well as the part where Richard stated that never again would he do so again! The inherent problem is the same problem Richard had with the people of Anderith, the IO was allowed to lie and dissuade people from the truth with the improper slant. I think to myself...did "you" understand what you read?

So having "criticizing" commentary is your goal? I have a hard time with that...especially when it isn't allowed on GRRM, ASOFAI, Erickson et al. Again; I'm finding myself asking what your motive is. mystar68.188.220.8 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course criticism is allowed, in fact it should be an integral part of any good article. Did you look at the article on Issac Asimov? It's a featured article, and it has a quite lengthy section devoted entirely to criticism of his novels. Now admittedly, Mr. Asimov is deceased, so people are more willing to write criticism, but urbane, constructive criticism is acceptable in any article. Runch 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, Im me at mystar1959 on aim. I have something for you from Goodkind. mystar68.188.220.8 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use AIM, but if you wish, you can email me. Just follow this link. Or if you prefer, you can just post whatever you have on my talk page (assuming it's text). Runch 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you seem hell bent on adding someone's personal blog as reputable commentary? The inchontas thing is not a reputable source of any thing other than his personal disdain for Goodkind and the series. If you want to cite negative commentary do so with a proper interviewer. One who has at least interviewed Goodkind. Look the bottom line is this... any one can write a smear article... The only people who are smearing Goodkind here are a "few" and I do mean few people who don't like the fact that the story isn't going the way they want it to. We see that fact that Goodkind's work is gaining in great popularity, so your assertions that many are critical are un-based. Or is it ok for me to start finding people’s blogs on how they are dissatisfied whit this or that and place them on Wikipedia articles?

The simply solution is stop trying to smear Goodkind. If you want find a professional critic do so. But I only find peoples personal blog, wanna be critics, armchair quarterback who are saying negative things. These people hardly hold up to the test of a professional critic or having any "influence" to add rather than some Jo (I hate Goodkind and I'm going to spew it) blow out there who happens to have a blog.

I think it unnecessary. mystar68.188.220.8 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's a commentary not a blog, and it's well written. It's not slanderious, it merely provides a different POV. Since it's a link, it doesn't actually change the NPOV status of the article. And it's actually a perfect source for the the quote in the text. The text currently reads: "There are however some fans who are critical of Goodkind's more recent publications, which focus more heavily on Objectivist philosophy. (followed by the link to the Critical Essay at Inchoatus.com)". The text conveys that this is probably a minority opinion, and it links to commentary by a group of fans - emphasis on fans. It makes more sense in this case to link to something written by a fan than something written by an outside observer, because the cited text quotes it as being an opinion of "some fans". - Runch 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is with the whole argument rather than the reference itself. "Some fans" is a clear example of weasel words, and clouds the question of whether this perspective is worth mentioning at all. I'm not sure it is (and I write as someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the essay, and indeed with most negative criticism of Goodkind's work). I don't think any Wiki article stands to gain from trying to include fan perspectives, which are impossible to verify and of dubious notability (there's a real echo chamber effect online). Do we include a link to fans who think Goodkind is one of the greatest novelists? To those that think he started well but went wrong along the way? To those who think he's a mean-spirited hack? I'd say no to all. People who look "Terry Goodkind" up in an encyclopedia don't need to see dueling amateur internet commentary. I recommend limiting all mention of literary or political criticism, positive or negative, to books, newspapers, and major, influential websites. If this means certain complaints about (or indeed praises of) Goodkind's writings are omitted, so be it: this is an enyclopedia article, not a democracy or a soapbox. Brendan Moody 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is weasel words, I agree with your point 100%. The problem is trying to get rid of all the weasel words and POV in this article. A critical review (positive or negative) is not out of the question but it needs to be a concise and NPOV section with clear sources. A amateur review is out of the question to include the one from Inchoatus.com. It's all about NPOV and reliable, citable sources. NeoFreak 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's certain an ongoing problem with how best to be NPOV. At this point, while we're waiting for mediation, I think the best step might be to remove most of the "Influence" section and all of "Fantasy Author or Novelist?" A bare version of the article would at least remove the need for edit wars over wording tweaks, until we've all been able to air our views in a productive discussion. Brendan Moody 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think an immediate stop to all edits and a request for an admin to temp lock the article would be best. While no one is 100% happy with the article it won't kill anybody to leave it as is for a day or two until the mediation can begin. NeoFreak 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I made some additions to the article, I think they really help out with the lingering NPOV issues. Anyway, we'll see if the edits stand up to the test of time.

What I need help with is the references. For some reasons, they are appearing with the wrong numbers and some are appearing twice in the References section at the bottom of the article. I can't figure out what's wrong with them, maybe someone else can see what I did wrong? (The weirdest part is that they look perfectly fine in the preview, but in the actual save they go crazy. Go figure...) - Runch 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me; the numbers match the sources used, and I don't see any appearing twice at the bottom. Where specifically do you see trouble? Brendan Moody 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, maybe it's a problem with my browser or my cache. For example, the first reference appears as an [11] instead of a [1]. But as long as it looks right to everyone else, I don't have any problem with it. If anyone else sees it appearing strangely, then I'll go back to worrying about it. Thanks though, Runch 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Moderation

Mystar, I repeat NeoFreak's question: Since informal moderation will most certainly not bring an end to this conflict, are you willing to take part in an offical mediation session? The decision is yours, but if you refuse to take part in an official mediation (as is your right), then I will make a request for arbitration. The arbitration is decided by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and their decision is final. This could include, but is not limited to, making changes to the article that neither of us wants, or having one or more Wikipedia editors banned from editing for an unspecified period of time.

I will expect your reply within 48 hours, and I will make no changed to the TG article until then. If I do not hear back from you, I will assume you are unwilling to participate, and I will request arbitration. - Runch 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. I really hope that Mystar is willing to engage in some mature dialouge about this through a mediation and it doesn't have to go to the level of an arbitration. If it does though I will support that as well as there will be no other choice. NeoFreak 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see Mystar, and also 198.96.2.93, participate in mediation. There's been too much edit warring in the article, and we need to have a civil discussion about various issues and come to a consensus so that a stable, mutually agreeable article will be produced. Brendan Moody 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with civil discussion is that Mystar tried that in the beginning, and you all took a condesending attitude toward him for trying (and being a newb at wiki at the time) to prevent vandalism on these articles. From what I can see present on this talk page currently, is nothing but NeoFreak goading Mystar into a very defensive position by using a "holier-than-thou" attitude toward Mystar. This is not only disrespectful, but is unproductive. Mystar is here to try and make sure that the information in the article is accurate. And please, don't patronize me by asking me to "not call you names" I am just stating what I have read in this discussion page. If you have a problem with my comment, re-read the page.

NeoFreak. You have stated yourself that you are editing Terry Goodkind pages simply because Mystar edited something on George R. R. Martin's page, and you decided to follow him back to other pages he edits. You're words, not mine. That sounds an aweful lot like cross article retaliation.

Now, as for the content of Mystar's edits here. Yes, there have been a number of POV changes he has made, but there have also be a number of changes that have been an attempt to provide accurate information in the stead of wrong information, or vandalism. There have been partial quotes added to the article that have been deliberately designed to cast a negative light on a neutral comment. If you are going to quote something make sure you get the essence of the meaning in the quote, not what you want the quote to mean.

This is where mystar has been TRYING to step in as an editor, and he's been out gunned by your "consensus" that includes inaccurate and in some places deliberately slanderous/libellous(word?) changes to the article to make Terry Goodkind appear to be something he is not. Now I have been content to let Mystar handle this as I've been busy aclimating myself to a very rigorous new job, but this truly has gone too far.

Admittedly, Mystar has a tap of positive spin into what he writes, but that is expected given his involvement. That does not invalidate what he writes, sometimes a positive attribute IS WHAT IS and is completely factual. What should occur after he writes something that has that positive spin is the spin being edited out by changing the tone of the addition so that only the facts remain, NOT removing the addition in its entirety unless it is unfactual. This goes for ever edit made: if it is true, make sure it's neutral, of it is false, remove it.

Mystar has not once added anything that is false. Positive spin, yes, but nothing he has ever written has been false.

Now, no one has qualms about a negative fact being added, if it is true, and that is where the conflict comes into being. People are citing half-truths to mean their own purpose (IE the chat lines where Terry states he is not a fantasy author being taken out of context). What Mystar has tried to do is present the complete truth of these half-truths and has been met with animosity from other editors who cannot stand the idea of Goodkind being shown as he truly is.

The negative spins stop here.

If you can get someone who is entirely unbiased to act in the capacity for Official Moderation. FTLaudWolf seems to be a really unbiased individual when they need to be. I would like you to consider approaching them for this if there are no objections. Omnilord 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I was explaining how it was I came ot this page. After Mystar went over to the ASOIAF pages and the Malazan pages and started to make sweeping edits that in the words of another editor "smacked of vandalism" I can looked into Mystars anon IP contribution list to figure out what was going on. That's when I came across this terrible situation and tried to talk to everyone to get this resolved. I hope that clears things up. I'm not here for "retribution" over anything.

All of this will be resolved in the pending mediation or arbitration. I find that I am unable to engage in any kind of constructive dialouge with Mystar but if you have any issues or questions with how I have conducted myself then by all means come over to my Talk page and I think we can come to an understanding, you seem to be a reasonable and mature individual. I simply see no aditional progress being made in this forum of discussion at this time. NeoFreak 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to pull strings or whatever it is called. I am just describing what I have read in this talk page. Mystar has been backed into a corner when he is right, and I have wiki-standard's to back that claim. As new to wiki as I am ( I just found the tilda signature thing today) I can't believe I am the one to cite this: Biographies of living persons.

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[1]

Without knowing it, Mystar has been adhering to this policy, and the Biographies of living persons standard. I would like to draw you're attention to the fact that in the face of unsourced, or poorly sourced, negative edits, the subject of the article or someone editing on their behalf has the weight when the matter is brought up. Now, here is the problem, there are not very many acceptable, professional grade sources to base a biographical page on this living person as he maintains a certain level of privacy.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist..." Many of the edits not started by Mystar, which he has reverted, have the quality of trying to sensationalize mistaken and error information using mis-quotes and half-truths that are not viable tender in an encyclopedic environment. If you get you're facts right, Mystar will not challenge it. Remember, this is an article about a living person and as such you need to tread very cautiously when editing it because the subject of the article DOES have weight against what is said about them. While it discourages subjects from contributing, it does encourage subjects to correct erronious information and remove libel or insulting commentation that is not properly sourced. In this, Mystar has done nothing wrong, and has been doing things by the book.

I suggest everyone review Biographies of living persons and make sure you have reviewed it, know it and understand it before you make a single post more. You can be sure that Official Moderation will go into this.

Omnilord 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary stop to all edits

This aritlce is again on the verge of an edit/revert war and that helps nobody. I would ask that all parties please stop editing until an offical mediation or arbitration can be completed and a consensus can be reached on this article. NeoFreak 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Jimbo-1] Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]