Talk:Terry Goodkind

I'm archiving a bunch of the old stuff, and leaving summaries. Archive is here, but I may screw it up:

I got half-way through this and realized I should have polled first. The stuff is still in the archive if anyone wants it, my apologies. Also, while I was trying to do this yesterday my network crapped out and I couldn't save. Further apologies. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Does anyone have a good source for the nubmer of books sold by Terry Goodkind? Options include:

http://www.prophets-inc.com/news/

or

http://www.scglit.com/press.htm

or

http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/ 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Work

There is an ongoing debate about his work and influence. Older items have been archived, what is current remains below 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

There was a section on symbolism that has not been touched since 2005. Archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous careers

Some individuals discussed previous careers, such as hypnotist and formula one driver.

Mystar was going to provide proof and references to this, which will add to the page if they are available. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Views!

Terry Goodkind puts a lot of objectivist philosophy in his books. Some find it preachy. Goodkind's response on an on-line chat was:

Goodkind explained to those present who had criticized his writing style with such harsh criticism of the base philosophy and the moral and ethical values contained within the series, saying that they were not fans, and that they hated that his novels existed. He also claimed "their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good... These people hate what is good because it is good." We have seen the full effect and thuth of this fact by the attacks against the values with in the series, against the moral and ethicial set the characters uphold.

Mystar contested this, there was some back and forth, the debate is ongoing and as of August 28th, 2006, was reflected in the article itself below. Stuff from June and before was archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo

There was discussion whether the photo in the article was recent. Mystar stated that it was, and provided several other pictures to put up if people wanted. There were no takers, and the photo seen as of August 28th, 2006 was the same one that has been up for a while. The other photos are below. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was also a brief discussion circa April 2006 about TG editorializing. Archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of cleaning up the discussion page. I'm doing so, archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of "online chat"

There was a discussion of the verifiability and usefulness of on-line chat as a source of information for Wikipedia. Originally this was an discussion which ended up being a series of heated remarks and discussion outside of the original topic. All posts dated to before August. Archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alienus and Mystar

A long dialogue between these two posters. Archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Link title

Regarding Mystar's Edits

A dialogue between Runch, Mystar and Werthead dating July 2006 initially about archiving rather than deleting the talk page. Soon moved past this point. 198.96.2.93 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Minor Quibble

A discussion of TG work with marine and wildlife paintings that was never replied to, by Runch. Archived. 198.96.2.93 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. "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.

1. "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.

1. "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.

1. "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.

1. "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)

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)

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)

See elsewhere. Paul Willocx 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would clarify at this point that, as far as I can determine, I am not the same individual as Paul Wilcox. I believe this can be determined neutrally by any admin by tracking ISP numbers. I gave up on trying to improve the quality of this page when I was repeatedly called a liar and treated with petty insults that were tiresome, so I retired to edit other pages that were of more interest to me about a month or two ago. This has proved invaluable in me gaining more experience of editing on Wiki and notably on getting a firmer grounding in NPOV rules. I actually went and ruthlessly edited and deleted my own NPOV statements from earlier articles when I was less experienced at editing. I have no wish to re-engage in a debate with Mystar (note that I bothered to spell your SN correctly, it would be helpful if you did the same to others), which is an exercise in futility. Thank you.--Werthead 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would all of you kindly stop referring to me as "Wilcox"? Thank you. Paul Willocx 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

I do not dislike SoT in the slightest, I will thank you not to make ridiculous assumptions about me. I regret that you (and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Goodkind himself) have the regrettable and ignorant "if someone isn't with us, he's against us" mentality, in which "with us" is taken to mean agreeing with every single thing Mr. Goodkind says. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Still more of the ridiculous assumptions. Unlike yourself, I actually have an edit history on a good number of topics, many of them entirely unrelated to fantasy, though I've indeed been concentrating on that of late. My edit sheet has a lot of stuff on it, and very little of it is related to Goodkind; you are an extreme hypocrit to make that remark, given your own lack of interest in anything that is not Goodkind here at Wikipedia, except when hunting for material to accuse other editors of being biased and Goodkind-haters.

And oh no, imagine that, someone new might actually come by and disagree with some of your more unreasonable edits. It seems the greater reasonability in your edits for the article itself, that I mentioned below before reading all of this, has been accompanied by a lot of foaming at the mouth, ridiculous insults and dubious accusations on the talk page. Still a long way to go then, after all.

I think it's also quite telling that you think anyone who likes aSoIaF cannot possibly like SoT. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

A common phenomenon of people accusing others of doing the things they do themselves, even when there is no reason to make that accusation: the reason why mystar has been editing GRRM's page should be obvious enough. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Would "direct representitive" be more palatable? NeoFreak

Yes, I stated that Mr. Goodkind does not have the right to determine what is on this page, after you justified an edit with something like "don't touch it, this is the version Mr Goodkind approved of". Apparently you are incapable of dealing with that fact and have to grossly exaggerate it. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

You accuse people of being "sockpuppets" for no reason at all except that they agree with your "enemies". You whine whenever someone does something you don't like, and bear grudges to such people, to the point of dragging them into arguments with which they have nothing to do, and to chasing for anything you can take offense in in their other articles. You are definitely not the person to complain about being treated uncivilly. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

In which "vandal" means anyone who dares to alter the article, constructively or not, yes? Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

You are always civil and never taking a stance of superiority towards others, eh? I can see that very cleary here, I must say. And allow me to point out that I have read and enjoyed (to various degrees, depending on the book) Mr. Goodkind's books up until Chainfire; apparently the fact that I am capable of calmly and reasonably discussing the books and their contents, and of seeing bad things as well as good things, makes me a fanatic. Interesting definition. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

You may have noticed that some of the people you call fanatics, sockpuppets, Goodkind-haters, and so forth (among which myself) have supported the removal of things that were negative POV. Indeed, looking at my edits, I fail to see how *any* of them warrants the accusations you make against me, or it would have to be the fact that the paragraph about "uplifting stories" didn't belong in the Fantasy/novelist section, and that I removed it while explicitly stating I left it as a comment in case someone could fit it in in a place where it did fit. But then, I will not hold my breath waiting for reasonable behaviour from you. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Kindly give me a single place where I fought against accurate and fair information. You can't? I thought as much. And given paragraphs of this kind, your claim to moral superiority in the arguing here is absurd. While we're at it, I would think Mr. Goodkind's objectivist philosophy advocates standing up for one's opinion, and not mindlessly following the opinion of others. Apparently you have a problem with people who do that, as testified by your claim that all real Goodkind fans must think the same way. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do spell my name correctly if you're going to make absurd claims about me. Paul Willocx 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive

198.96.2.93 added an archive box and removed a bunch of today's discussion but did not move it to an archive page. I've reverted that change and archived less recent material that doesn't seem relevant to the current disputes. If any user thinks some of the archived material should stay on this page, I invite them to restore it. The page is still pretty long, but given the ongoing issues I don't think further archiving is desirable. Brendan Moody 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

I'm very excited that you are persuing a constructive discussion Omnilord! This is exactly what belongs here. To start out I am familiar with the guidlines and rules dictating biographical articles on living persons. The message Jimbo was trying to convey is that all speculation and POV entires are to be deleted and not just tagged with a "". The three principl rules to govern any bio artilce (and really most others for that matter) are

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

as is clearly labeled at the beginning of the referenced article. This is the point that the other editors and myself have been trying to drive home. Editor's opinions of Goodkind, his work or his stance on any issue are not allowed on Wikipedia. The refrencing of an outside or third party's opinion if it is relavent and citable is allowed.

This current situation we find ourselves is in fact covered in Biographies of living persons and is repeated for ease of review here:

"Well-founded complaints about biographical articles from their subjects arrive daily in the form of e-mails to the Wikipedia contact address, phone calls to the Foundation headquarters and to Jimbo Wales, and via postal mail. These people are justifiably upset when they find inaccurate or distorted articles, and the successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter requiring ongoing involvement of OTRS volunteers and paid staff."

"Frequently the problem is compounded when the subject attempts to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since such people may not be regular Wikipedians, they are unaware of our policies, and are often accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith."

It further covers that all biogrpahies of living persons should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Concerning material that is defamitory to a living person (of which I have seen none) is covered quite simply as

"Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

This covers material such as "Many people think that Terry Goodkind likes to eat babies" or "Terry Goodkind is rumored to smell bad". This does not cover critacal review of his works. This also does not cover a group's opinion about him if it can be cited and is relavent as covered in Reliable Sources.

Mystar has in fact been in violation of the rules governing Wikipedia editing as several editors have attempted to point out to him. Of course the details and some of the rather obscure rules about editing Wikipedia can be a challenge for many new editors and this is only aggravated when dealing with the especially complex issue of "Living Persons Biographies" but I'm very glad to see that you have taken measures to learn more about wikipedia's rules as this is a sign of a good editor that is ready to really contribute to wikipedia in a tangible and effetive manner! Best of luck. NeoFreak 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Omnilord: it would appear you have read the article and some of its editing history, but not the talk page; else you would not fail to understand why mystar is as unpopular as he is. Though if you have read the editing history, you should also have seen the occasions where mystar reverted attempts at altering the article without any further justification than "Terry liked the article the way it was", which as I then pointed out is not an argument. Now I suggest that you do read the talk page, and realize that mystar is not the only one of the main contributors here who has spoken out against or removed negative POV against Goodkind - however, he is the only one who has thrown tantrums when positive POV was removed, when sections that weren't relevant to the place they were in were removed, or when people did attempts at clarifying or rewriting sections without any negative spin in it. I see he has been improving in that regard the past day; if that is due to your influence, I hope you will continue to support him, though I also hope you will prove more willing to see things from a different light on the accompanying talk page. Paul Willocx 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that mystar's edits in the past days have been far more constructive, more willing to acknowledge that there are different opinions among the SoT readers, and less likely to just entirely revert changes he doesn't like.

In all fairness I think some of the things he objected to (though not all) were indeed negative POV. Given that, it seems a good deal more likely now that we can reach a version that people can agree on, imho. Paul Willocx 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that Mystar seems to be making slow but steady progress in regards to his edits. While we wait for his response on the question of moderation, I've been seriously thinking about how we should proceed with this article. I'd like to explore more thoroughly a suggestion made earlier by Brendan Moody:

Probably the best way to make this article NPOV (and thus end our current conflict) would be to remove any and all material that is not a fact. This means removing any and all opinions, whether they be Terry Goodkind's or anyone else's. As you might guess, this would remove a good deal of the article, leaving us with pretty much only the following sections: Biography, Bibliography, Awards, References, and External Links.

Although this would certainly make the article NPOV, I am somewhat loathe to remove most of what I consider to be quality information. If you look through some of the featured articles on authors that I previously listed for Mystar, you will find that those articles are quite extensive and have a good deal of "criticism" or discussion of "themes" in those author's novels and in their lives. Admittedly, those authors are also deceased, and the living persons biography standards no longer apply.

I'd like to know everyone else's thoughts as to this suggestion. Is getting rid of most of the article a good solution, or is that merely avoiding the problem? Thanks for your input, Runch 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was suggesting that removal as a temporary solution to prevent edit warring until we mediate/moderate/arbitrate. I don't think we need to permanently remove all opinions; we just need to be scrupulous about avoiding giving undue weight to any side. A well-sourced section presenting notable views on Goodkind's work would absolutely be beneficial to the article. Brendan Moody 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

~sighs~ You people just don't have a clue do you... You are awaiting an answer I already gave you. The problem is you only see what you want and expect to see. I said quite clearly I have no problem with mediation, as long as a neutral and unbiased person[s] can be found.

Neo you are no more (and much less so as by your own admission followed me back here and then decided to wreak havoc in retaliation), important as an editor than I, or even Goodkind (IF he ever decided to get off his ass and get the internet ;p) for that matter. You assume a pose of superiority when nothing can be further from the truth. You baby-sit ASOFAI/GRRM like it is your own baby. I asked for legitimate citation. Simply saying that the link is enough is not good enough nor is it according to the rules. It would take a week of Sundays to muddle through those pages to find the material you claim is sourced. Double standard indeed! Secondly, you have eliminated any opposing opinion, that which you all seek to ardently to plaster here on Goodkind's page...again double standard!

I have no faith in any of you. I see no honor of any of you. I do see now that you are suddenly back peddling, saying that ":::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. Brendan Moody"

I fail to understand how you can so openly miss the fact that is what I've been saying and editing...all along! Again you will only see what you expect to see and want to see... I think Wizards First Rule is so very applicable to you guys.

The fact of the matter is "this is an encyclopedia article, not a democracy or a soapbox"(moody), but as Goodkind "IS" in fact alive and "IS" in fact still producing material his opinions of his work not only have merit but are and should be applicable with regard to understanding his work from an encyclopedic nature. Neo has never read any Goodkind, so he would have no knowledge of what the author is investing with in his books/series. That people is what "encyclopedic" knowledge is about...NOT trying to find some one who can't stand the man of his works and then only provides a biased spin...while OMITTING MUCH of the pertinent information contained within the books/Series! You cannot have you cake and eat it too. The problem is with someone like the inchonatis(sp) blog is that he has only offered up his personal opinion omitting several key elements and events to twist and misrepresent the material into only what he wants people to see. And while failing to be honest about that he has failed himself and anyone who reads his blog. He and a few other people simply wish to keep any kind of positive spin or look to this page.

The thing is IF you in fact are going to force such anti-fan perspectives to be included...then guess what, you MUST allow PRO-Fan prespectives as well. That would only be fair. You have eliminated ANY pro-Goodkind material, citing it as not allowable... The fact of the matter IS Goodkind DID burst onto the Fantasy Scene! He was here to fore an UN-known entity with in any field of authorship. His first book took the lead in any bidding for such books and it still stands to day. Eliminating the "Goodkind burst onto the...." is omitting the facts AND the truth! YOU are simply trying your best to keep the man down, to lord your control over him here. You are in fact trying to control him successful career from being so notated here. Why? What are you afraid of? I personally think I know all too well, but will keep my opinion to myself and only offer up the truth and facts.

I suggest you check your premises, as you are in contradiction to yourself!

It looks to me like Omnilord has pegged you guys and you don’t like it, so now all the sudden you want to play nice nice. As I’ve said many times I do not play games or word games. I call a spade a spade.

mystar68.188.220.8

I'm done arguing with you, you don't listen to anyone. Two quick things though:

• This is the last time I ask you to refrain from personal attacks. If it happens again I'm going to get an admin involved.
• I'm tired of your unqualified assumptions. Wether or not I'm a Terry Goodkind fan or am familiar with all his works and related media is totally inconsequential to the format of this page and the behavior of some of its editors. If it will put you at ease and allow everyone to move onto what is important I will acknowledge that I have not only read Goodkind but seen and read most of his interviews and have read and am familiar with both Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

Thank you for clarifying you position on a mediation. I will submit a request in the near future. NeoFreak 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your insults on Talk:Terry Goodkind have gone on long enough, Mystar. If you violate the rule on personal attacks again, I will post your actions on the intervention noticeboard. - Runch 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request one. Can one of you throw what you are seeing as personal attacks from Mystar's previous edit onto my talk page or somehow show it to me? I would like to know what you are considering Personal Attacks.

Point one. Contextually, and contentfully, there are very few citeable sources of information about Terry that are not opinionated POV in the Positive or Negative. This is the issue I have seen: when ever a Positive POV is cited, it is promptly challenged and removed, yet when a Negative POV is cited, and mystar has removed it, he is threatened with being labelled a vandal, not once, but every single time he has tried to improve the quality of the article. As far as I can tell, that in and of itself is against the No Personal Attacks policy. Albeit a number of times his edits have gone overboard, the intention has never once exceeded making sure the truth is show accurately and properly.

Point two. The best solution is to make sure that the content is complete or references complete information so that no inclussion is rendered inacurate, like the reference to the Chat Log (which was a deliberate attempt at slandering Terry's reputation on the internet). Let's face it, we all agree that allowing a lie or a half-truth is a discredit to all who view and edit wikipedia. Get the facts right and straight before editing the article. Mystar has access to the facts as they stand and the man himself. Since you cannot discount the truth of tis, there are only two options left to consider as being motivation for reverting (in place of editing) almost all of Mystar's changes: 1. a person distaste of the author and a desire to see him discredited was the reason for the edit, or 2. you just want a citeable source. Leaving #1 without any addition commentation for now (please?), #2 is addressable.

As I have said before, Terry is an extremely private individual, who guards himself and his information very carefully. As a result, there is minimal information available that is of citable quality. Let us start here. What is to be done when limited professional information is supplied about a subject that is noteworthy and has an article on wiki? You would think information the subject of the article provides would be adequate information for a biography of that subject when quoted properly (IE "Terry has said about abcde 'zxywvut...' The response from popular communities has been mixed and controversial. Those who enjoy reading his works ... While there has been considerable animosity from other communities on the internet." or something such like that. There is a constructive way of references POV as it is applicable to the subject: it is called 3rd person.

Anyway, I've said a lot in a short span. I would like to continue this using viable examples relative to this subject matter so that we can compile an accurate and factual article. I don't care for democracy, I care for the truth. Let us make that the point of consensus. 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Omni, considering all that you have just said and your previous input, I for one would highly value your input. More so than mine at this point. Though it seems that noting is going to be changed as Neo cannot even follow his own request to stop all edits, and instead has not only edited but added stark controversial content.

I do not hold out much hope for a fair out come based on these actions Neo,s own in violation of his request to stop all edits. It appears all to clear what the intent is here. Am I the only one who sees it?

Where is the mod team? mystar68.188.220.8 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments below and review main page the edit history, again. NeoFreak 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'd like to remind everyone to keep in mind the need for civility in a stressful discussion like this one. I've seen recent comments from both "sides" that have been insensitive or rude. Regardless of how you feel those who disagree with you have behaved, please be as polite as possible and avoid further escalation. Thanks. Brendan Moody 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I've suspected.. the only one who is expected to "stop all edits" in who? me? Neo you need to take a step back and follow your own advise here. You are the one who asked for all edits to stop, yet here you go jumping in and editing freely... S'up with that eh?

I guess I'm confused as to your intent here. YOu want moderation, and help, then you attack me for my views. Was it just to get me banned so you can have free regin? I'm baffeled at what your doing here. I see no moderation as of yet, and lo, here you go editing again placing controversial content. I would ask that you please follow your own advise, as I ma doing.

I woudl like to get this situation corrected, but that isn't going to happen if you cannot follow your own rule.

mystar68.188.220.8 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I (or anyone else here) cannot enforce a temp stop on edits, I am not an admin. It was a request so please do not revert others edits on these grounds anymore. I thought the only thing we could ALL agree on was that the content of this article was in dispute so I placed a appropriate warning template at the top of the page to advise editorial caution and urge readers to review the talk page so they could understand what was going on. I didn't change the content of the article. As for the moderation the request in is the works right now, please be patient I don't want a half-assed request put in and waste anybody's time. This is also the part where I ask you to refrian from your accusations but what's the point? You don't seem to care. NeoFreak 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I care or I woudln't be here. I care and that is my main concern. You asked for a stop to all edits that woudl include reverting the artical until it is accepted by a mod. It seems very simply to me. I don't see the problem. Not reverting the artical to its current status only allows anon to have his way and add negitive and NPOV, conterversial content. I'll not allow that to happen. Am I the only guardian of fairness here? mystarMystar 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the intrest of civility I have to take a step back as I just can't...deal with this in a constructive tone for the moment as I am on the verge of exploding. Apologies all around. NeoFreak 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one appreciate your honesty in showing your emotional state here. I commend your stance, and what’s more I gain a new level of respect for you taking such a stance/action. You just elevated your self in my book. Let me also clarify, I feel no animosity or anger to anyone over this. My only concern is to have the page truthful and correct, free of NPOV and biased opinion. Again, neo I do applaud your honesty.

I would be willing to take a step back IF, and only IF someone with fairness and honesty were to take a handle on this.

mystarMystar 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion is like quicksand: Your own efforts only make you sink deeper. Only an outside hand can pull you out.

-Unknown

mystarMystar 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For Shame

All I can say, since I'm new at this, is that many people here seem to have misunderstood Mr Goodkind's series and his message entirely. I question if they have even read the entire series at all.

The Sword of Truth Series is an inspirational masterpiece that shows the reader that they can be what they want to be and in an ideal world without fear of persecution. Reason is not to be feared, people who reject reason are because more often then not they try to twist reality for their own selfish means.

All this 'consensus' dribble is nonesense. If this site is dedicated to facts and the truth than it should worry about accuracy not mob rule consensus.

Information here should be neutral, not some foolish and obviously biased ranting.

There are a few people here who should be ashamed of themselves, but then again they may not understand why it is they should be. (Originally posted by DuDZiK)

Notice regarding solicited participation

It has recently come to my attention that Mystar has been soliciting other Goodkind fans to participate in the discussion here. It is an official policy of Wikipedia that such advertising is considered highly inappropriate, and that participation only to further an individual agenda (rather than to improve the whole encyclopedia) is strongly discouraged. For more information on the topic, please see this page, which details the nature of and reasons for the relevant policy. This warning applies equally to anyone who comes here from Westeros.org or any other message board containing anti-Goodkind sentiment. This dispute has gotten large enough as it is, and the best way to resolve it is through participation from more experienced Wikipedians. Thank you for your understanding. Brendan Moody 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

in keeping with your advise/suggestion I have altered some wording to assure all parties involved that this is not happening. If anyone were to look about Wikipedia has been a bone of contention for ages. Asking for input and advise is not the same thing as asking fan's to participate. I expressly ask for no partipication, any kind of posting or any kind of action from any Goodkind fan's....only input. mystarMystar 04:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)