Talk:Terry Goodkind/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Review 3 Russian names 4 Career 5 Work 6 Symbolism 7 Hypnotist? 8 Formula One 9 Philosophical Views! 10 Photo 11 removal of editorializing 12 Clean up of discussion page? 13 Verifiability of "online chat" 14 Alienus and Mystar 15 Page has been Vanadalized 16 Regarding Mystar's Edits 17 Minor Quibble 18 Recent edits 19 Fantasy author versus novelist? 20 Verifiabiltity of on-line chat 21 More edits by mystar 22 Mediation 23 Official mediation 24 For Shame 25 My Beefs 26 WLU replies to comments 27 Fantasy or not: a better quote (imho)

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can "officially" say it is indeed more than the 20 million, but I do suggest that we stick to the 20 Million. There are some specific reasons for this. We "Officially" know that Goodkind has some huge numbers in several foreign countries. Italy, China, The Philippines, Russia, The Netherlands are selling record numbers of the series. The SOT series is outselling any other fantasy series over there. Some of the foreign sub-publishers do not report to TOR or his UK publisher. This is why we see such a discrepancy on this matter. So I do suggest we say 20 million + Mystar 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) What makes it official? Do you have a reference from TOR? Since the other publishers do not send the numbers to TOR, we can't rely on TOR for a ceiling figure, but they'll definitley give a floor figure, or an accurate one for the US and Canada. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a fatter of mact, I do! I also have material from Goodkind, BUT, as I stated earlier, I am suggesting that we use the figure we have listed on .net & .com, as Terry is not going to make his royalty numbers public, and with good reason! Secondly WLU, I am going to ask politely that you take a less hostile tone with me. I stated the facts as they are. Call Tor if you wish, call Harper Collins UK and they will tell you not every publisher reports to them. If you don't like that, it is not my problem. I have source material that you are not privy to. So me I am free to make public, some I'm asked not to. I do think however that my well-known association with Goodkind' gives my points creditability. If you disagree, that's not my problem. Mystar 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC) If you can't source it you can't use it. NeoFreak 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) p, well, that would be "why" I stated that we use the 20 Million+ figure. I can "source it" but, I've no desire to start faxing Russia, et al, to get the rest of them. Mystar 04:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Then don't use it. NeoFreak 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC) uhm, well didn't I just say, I suggest we "not" use it? I am asking you to please stop being counter productive here in your attempts to assume a superior tone. It is counter productive to the situation at hand. I can source the 50 Million and with full credibility! I fail to understand why you feel you must attempt to correct me even after I have stated several times I suggest we use the 20 million+ figure. Mystar 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I would suggest using the exact TOR figure and simply making a notation that the number does not include many foriegn sales and then citing it. Sound reasonable? NeoFreak 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me!Mystar 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Then unless any other editors have a issue with it I think we can implement that change post mediation? NeoFreak 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Review

I have added a just released review of Terry Goodkind. Mystar 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian names

Never heard of Darken and Demmin as Russian names. And I lived in the USSR for 18 years. I suppose this must be a misunderstanding originating in some lousy translation. --Oop 08:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Demmin" could be a misinterpretation of "Demyan", very rare Russian name. And there are no names that look like "Darken".

Career

After discussing this portion with Goodkind,I edited it for errors and proper informationMystar 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking over a lack of information, I added cited content and material pertinent to the author and his works.

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) Well, do we want half-truths? Or do we want be "honest" and publish fact? Goodkind has a colorful and widely varied work history. Like his work as an artist. That was his main stay career. I have all the proofs anyone wants. BUT the bottom line is this; some have shamelessly edited his work history because they didn't believe it. Again, I say fact IS fact and is pertinent to being encyclopedic knowledge. Anyone? Mystar 03:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please present your proofs of his work as an artist. I google-imaged TG's name with -stone -phantom -all the titles, I coulnd't find an on-line picture he painted. I'm quite willing to accept that in the article if we have something to link it to. Admittedly from his webpage it does look like he does have a variety of occupations, but what is there besides just his webpage? If you can provide me with a link to his paintings that doesn't go through something with Terry Goodkind in the domain name, it'll go a long way towards me dropping my objections. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see a pattern here already. WLU, if all you are going to do is to argue and attempt to shoot anything down, I have a problem with you. I already am of the mind you just jumped in to be a fly in the ointment on this situation. We have no knowledge of you other than popping up and jumping on this bandwagon, and as I stated it is already looking like you are here just to decry any information I offer. Goodkind being a well-known artist is a well-known fact. If you took the time to read any interviews (written, audio or otherwise), articles, Statements from Goodkind and the myriad of pictures I've posted of his works on the MB's you would not be asking that question. You will find various statements about Goodkind's work as an artist. All you have to do is to look. It is not incumbent upon me to proof out to you what we already know, just to please you. I happen to have several prints of Goodkind's work in my home and IF you have any of the SOT books you also have some of his work there as well. Goodkind painted the leaf pattern on the inside pages of the first few books. It took him 50+ hours to do that piece, as it is a very difficult piece of work. dot, painting and shading is not the easiest thing to do. The image of Cara of Temple of the Winds is also a piece of Goodkind's work, but that is nothing compared to the real work he has done with realistic marine and wildlife paintings. He has several shows at various galleries, his last painting titles Penguins on Ice http://www.terrygoodkind.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2045 sold for over for over $30,000.00 ten years ago, and was just resold for over $200,000.00 earlier this year. Mystar 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Work

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

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

Career section

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

Influence section

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

Fantasy author or novelist section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symbolism

Until further notice, I have removed the Symbolism section of this page. Most of this article is speculation and very little of it is correct, in addition, the article is poorly written. For example, the article states that Subtractive Magic sybolizes "the loss of freedom. Subtractive is viewed as evil because it subtracts freedom." Not only is that poor grammar, it is simply not true; subtractive magic is vital to Goodkind's world, and Richard Rahl himself frequently uses it. In fact, the entire book of "Naked Empire" is dedicated to the fact that things like Subtractive Magic and killing, if justified are good, while peace and submission, if unjustified are bad. I can hardly believe you've read through his books and not picked this up by now. You also make a claim that "The central square in the end of the first and second books may also be references to Red Square in St. Petersburg." Red Square is in Moscow, and I doubt very much that Goodkind was refering to Russia when he created Da'Hara. Da'Harans are traditionally blue eyed, blonde haired warriors (Generally an Aryan trait), and the Da'Haran culture is highly patriarchial, not generally a trait seen in Communist Rhetoric. In my opinion,Da'Hara represents Nazi Germany, and yes the old world certainly represents the Soviet Union and communism. There are many other inaccuracies included in this text, and therefore I am scrapping the entire thing. However, Objectivist symbolism is very important in regards to Terry Goodkind's works, so I do intend to add a rewritten version of said article. Thanks,

--TheRedAnthem 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it mainly because people don't understand this section and how to populate it , let along wrap their teeth around it. just MHO Mystar 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Or it could be because symbolism is an inherently personal thing once you get beyond the myths and history of a people. Symbolism is a contested thing, I would think it's almost impossible to say something about symbolism that everyone agrees with. I think it's better staying out of this page, and either go into the individual book's pages, or a "symbolism of TG" WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be that you just don't want any content pertinent to Goodkind that would provide the reader proper information so they can better understand what Goodkind is presenting within his books. This "is" after all a page about Goodkind and what "he" is presenting. Not what you want his to present, but these are "his" books and as he has placed some specific situations and spend some amount of time crafting his work to show symbolism, that it becomes nessary that that fact be included as it would at that point be "encyclopedic" in nature. That being Goodkind is using it to make a point. It is not as you are trying to espouse "an inherently personal thing". It is in fact a part of what he is providing for the reader. Nothing Personal" about it. Fact is fact. Mystar 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypnotist?

I erased the section that said he was a hypnotist. I've been a long fan of his and I've never heard of him working as a hypnotist. Also, let me know if anyone has any projects in construction for this page; I'm a massive fan of Terry and I would like to collaborate with anyone on restructuring this page. --IAlan

Terry Goodkind worked for a short time as a clinical therapist, which included the application s of Hypnotism as therapy. I will be adding the proper references shortly. Mystar 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Formula One

And where did this claim come from - if it is possible to substantiate this claim please revert the edit - but I know of no such race driver and a Formula One racecar driver?? Kevinalewis 09:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I got that info from a biography posted of him on the Terry Goodkind forums prepared by Ron Wilson (Mystar) and A.D. Hough (Addicted), acknowledged personal friends of Terry. Here's the quote: "He took up interests in such areas as marine and wildlife art, cabinet making, violin making and rare artifact restoration, and believe it or not, he also trained and drove as a Formula One racecar driver. To this day Terry can be seen racing about on the back roads of a small desert town in his super charged Ferrari when he feels the need…the need for speed!" And here's the thread: http://www.terrygoodkind.net/forums/showthread.php?t=638 I don't really know if it's true, but that's where I got it.

Ok, I can see you have a source. But is that source reliable. Trained as I have no way of checking that! "Drove as" this would normally mean that he drove in at least one Formula One race, which I can find no reference for. It could mean that he drove as a team's test driver, which again is more difficult to check. My guess this is one of those apocryphal stories that gets a life of it's own. That he might have an old Formula One car which he drives, again is not immpossible, in fact with his royalties quite possible! I believe this statment should be left out until a verifiable source can be found. Thanks for checking. Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes this ia a true fact. Goodkind did Train as a Formula One Driver. If anyon efeels the need to add this to the page I can provide proofs from Goodkind himself. Mystar 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be adding the citations and re introducing the information shortly Mystar 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Views!

"Also, when his novels were accused of being a bit "too preachy" by a fan during the same chat, 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.

With these comments and several others, Goodkind effectively drew a line in the sand, implying that you were either with him or against him....."

--[[U

Uhm, he's an Objectivist. What do you expect? Alienus 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't disagree they are not too preachy. What I object to is when people try and hide the message that they are pushing, so that you are potentially taking on the ideas subliminally. At least Terry is upfront, it is obvious but not overpowering. Personally I don't agree with Terry's "Objectivism" but he does write a "Stonking" garn. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You show your true color when you use such harsh and verbal abuse as crazy and nut case. While you may not like Goodkind or his works, lowering yourself to bring your dislike to a personal low by such an action. You have blatantly misinturpited the interview and Terry's words that is the offense. You are, as you said you would do on your website Malazan Forums, write up something devious to stir up things a bit. While you may well think Goodkind is saying something, you are taking it out of context and making his words fit your scenario. I am a good friend of Goodkind's and I can assure you that the only controversy is in your head. You have no right to try and make Wikipedia your soapbox simply because you don't like Goodkind. Mystar 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever their motivations, the links seem to be genuine. I don't really care how wonderful a friend he is to you: he actually said the things he is quoted as saying. Alienus 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While the links are genuine, the supposed "controversy" is not. It is simply something someone is using as a basis simply because they do not care for Goodkind and wish to place him in a negative light based on their POV. It is very interesting AND telling that this poster of the controversy post singles out a specific item and twists it to use as a pejorative attempting to make Goodkind look inflammatory. Any book ever written is in some part a philosophical opinion or view of the author, so if you find a book not to your liking, don't read it, or stop reading it. I have more of a problem with the fact that this sad individual chooses to state a fact that he CANNOT back, that being "Recently Goodkind has come under fire from critics and fans alike for comments he made about his work". Oddly enough he cannot provide any verification for this boast. mystar1959

If you can show that the quotes are taken out of context so as to be misleading, then you may have a case. Otherwise, I don't see any basis for your complaint. Alienus 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

go to any message board about literature, anywhere on the internet and mention terry goodkind. i almost guarantee you'll immediately be flamed mercilessly for liking the guy. whether you call it a controversy or not, you can't ridicule your own fans and expect to get away with it. so people like to read the sword of truth books for the fantasy involved. is that so wrong? i literally skipped dozens of pages at a time while reading the last three or four books and didn't feel like i'd missed anything. just because you criticize an author's work, that doesn't mean that you "hate everything that is good omg". richard rahl is the fantasy equivalent of a backwoods hick, yet all of a sudden he can speak for hours about philosophy, use a sword and magic at master levels with no training, and solve any problem, no matter how hard it would be for anyone else. it's shoddy writing but oh noez!!!11!1 since i said that i "hate everything that is good". give me a break. levid37

Well, there you have it! We have a person who has in his own words hates Goodkind. HE hates that Goodkind's works exist. SO because of that he feels it is his task to post misinformation and a slanted post about this person he so hates. That's not an attack of personal slander? We go further, this poor person feel that anyone anywhere can go to any rabid fan site dedicated to the author of other fantasy series and expect nothing but praise and worship for other authors? Again I challenge the validity of his claims. What we have here is as I stated earlier. A sad little person who has little time on his hands but to try and drag his personal crusade onto other respectable sites. Paste his personal crusade to smear and disparage someone simply because he doesn't like what Goodkind has written and written so well that Goodkind has sold millions and millions of books and has become one of the top selling series in fantasy. Yes, yes by al means allow personal smear campaigns like that. It makes Wikipedia look like some two bit fantasy rabid fan site with no creditability.

As to the point I made earlier. SHOW ME THE CONTRAVSRY and not just a sad little person bent on a smear campaign. Show me that his post is IN context. Show me the critic[s] that are putting him under fire. I see NO such link, I see no such validation simply that one person has made a statement of his OWN personal feelings.

Fan's may or many not like a work. So what! Not every person will like exactly everything that is written or written by a favored author. SO is that validation to call him names and ridicule? I think not and especially not on such a place as Wikipedia. Again we have someone making a claim that he cannot back up. Simply put there is a link to an interview that the poster wishes to place his OWN spin on and that's it. I thought as do many others that Wikipedia had a higher standard and was a place for honest, unbiased and factual information, not a two bit rag that allows rabid smear tactics.mystar1959

dude, calm down. I do not HATE terry goodkind and i do not HATE that his works exist. now who's taking someone's words out of context? taking it personal much? and did i say "go to another author's page and talk about goodkind"? no. my exact words were "go to any message board about literature". yeah, i know, "any message board" includes other author's message boards but i assumed that one would know the difference.

and as far as this "hating" terry goodkind, nowhere did i say that i hated him or his works. honestly, i enjoy aspects of his work. enough aspects, in fact, that i would consider myself a fan. but at the same time, i think that other aspects are in fact preachy and overdrawn. but according to the comments made BY THE AUTHOR, you can't do both. you can't be a fan who criticizes. and before you deny that claim, think about this: every time i've ever tried to write any sort of criticism or what i thought of terry or his work on his official website, even if it's filled with glowing praise, as long as it's contained one single, solitary gripe, no matter how small, about the book or his beliefs, it's been immediately deleted by a mod. apparently terry and his mods don't like us ignorant fans dissecting his work. go figure. and btw, you seem to be taking this a little personal. the fact is, goodkind did say those things. so an individual (or group of individuals) doesn't heap praise on an author. that doesn't make it a smear campaign. it's their opinion and they have a right to it. that doesn't automatically mean they "hate what is good." levid37

What you and so many fail to see and rail against is the thematic nature of the series. The brevity, the heroics, heroic and the nobility overcoming with out sacrificing your values and ethics. Seeing in literature a story where one can indeed win with out compromising his nature or values. NOW here the proof is in the truth of your admission. You admit to “skimming pages and chapters, then you feel qualified to give commentary and critique? Please! You just disqualified yourself from any kind of notion that anyone would take you or your comments with anything more than uneducated and unfounded babble Again I'll post the comments, which no one else has done, and show the context. I appreciate and accept the change made to the topic title, which is more fitting, but still not in keeping with what Wikipedia was created for and is used for. Lets not allow Wikipedia to turn into another all tings go message board for posting things simply because you don’t like that person. Isn’t there enough nastiness in the world? Aren’t there enough places where untoward and tawdry remarks are used to besmirch a person reputation? As I understood it and read it, Wikipedia and its nature is not to allow personal vendettas to rule someone’s post. I find I am mistaken.

First I have to be in New York for the next three days, so if you'll forgive my absence until then, I'll only be too happy to provide you with the factual context and where the sad people with no life keep missing the point, context and issue. I will also say this, "enemies are the price of honor". mystar1959

You're right, there is way too much nastiness in the world. So I propose a truce, wherein we can come to an understanding. i for one am willing to put away my biting sarcasm if you're willing to stop calling me uneducated :)

i just want to clarify. i in no way shape or form dislike terry goodkind. i don't dislike his works or his philosophies. he has every right to his beliefs just like anyone else. all i'm saying, is that i personally enjoy his works for their fantasy aspects. i can't help but feel the slightest bit insulted when an author assumes that i hate his works and that i hate his beliefs just because i get a bit bored with the constant philosophical speeches in his novels. and don't think that just because i skip a paragraph or two here and there that i don't fully understand or dislike the ideas he's putting forth. i was exaggerating for the sake of exaggeration when i said i skipped chapters and pages. all i'm saying is that i just feel that sometimes richard or zedd can be a little long-winded in their speeches. you don't have to beat me over the head with a philosophical brick every three pages, i get the idea.

i'll say it again. i don't hate terry goodkind. i don't hate his work. maybe i AM taking his words out of context. i'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. it's the least i can do for the hours of entertainment he's given me, and i'll be happy to rationally discuss the topic til i'm blue in the face.

I fail to see the reason for dissent here. Terry Goodkind's works have been a source of controversy and debate for a long time on many forums (including but not limited to Westeros.org, Malazanempire.com, Wotmania.com, SF.com.rec.arts and others), in critical assessments of the Sword of Truth series and in print reviews. There is a controversy, even if it is relatively mild compared to say, the debates that raged in the past over L. Ron Hubbard's work. I think acknowledging it is merely enough, however. Going into detail (for example, about the Canada incident, the instant self-contradictions etc) is probably pushing the boundaries of Wikipedia's fairness. On the other hand, refusing to mention it at all would also be dishonest. --Werthead 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is dishonest is that you’re thinking these rabid fan boy message boards are something akin to the majority of the worldview. Sorry to burst your bubble, they are not. You have no source for any "critical views" save those of armchair critics. The only so called " controversy" is with you and a handful of fantasy geeks. Any "in print" reviews you will not find "controversy". We all get you have some kind of burr under your saddle. We al get you don't like Goodkind. That does not give you the right to vandalize his page or to keep posting unverifiable information. It does not give you the right to post your slanted POV. Listing a bunch of crazy fan boy boards is not considered a source. You truly need to learn what a source is and that your personal dislike is not reason enough to continue to vandalize this and other pages. I suggest you learn that befor your actions are sanctioned Mystar 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to rationalise the debate somewhat, I will concur that my comments above (taken at a time when I was new to Wikipedia) are somewhat irrelevant to this article, although simultaneously pointing out that they are not reflected in the article itself, rather as rebuttal for your claim that there is no debate. There is a debate about Goodkind, fiercely fought and widespread across SF&F fandom, but as it is a POV and matter-of-opinion discussion, it is perhaps not entirely relevant to discuss in this article. However, I do object to being accused of vandalising this page. I have never done so. Your repeated lies that I have done so are frankly childish and unworthy of you. If you withdraw these baseless accusations and apologise, I will withdraw my above comments and consent to having this exchange deleted from the discussion page so other subjects may be discussed.--Werthead 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I contested this because, it was biased and out of context. We did an "on-line live chat", not all the pertinent info was placed in context. Goodkind was actually answering to a specific attack from someone in a letter. The context was specifically a trash attack telling Goodkind that they are fans but how dare he be his placing his values, moral and philosophical views in his books. The series is created by Goodkind, and he can add what he wishes, as he sees fit. Someone who attacks him for his values and especially the fact that he has chosen to portray his hero's as incorruptible and holding fast to their values is hi right. This so called fan also stated that Goodkind should kill off his hero, for nothing more than he felt all heroes must die. Goodkind said it right, this person is no fan, and he hates that his books exist. We see this all too clearly in the anti-Goodkind people out there who continually attempt to add hateful and overtly false and critical information. We see this in a few people who keep a running trash Goodkind thread of a couple of message boards... I also add that they are fanatical fans of their message board the are posting on (I'll forgo the names, but I can provide several links to any mod to prove my point), So because Goodkind is selling so well, they feel they have to take him down a peg or two (an actual quote from one MB in patericular) I think seeing as the series "is" so steeped with and written for the expression of Goodkind's Philosophical views, it is a most intragual portion of the page[s]. That some people don't like it; sorry that's too bad. They don't get to post personal opinion and try and obfuscate the premise of the books. It is what it is. Just because someone started reading the series, and after a few books, only then, caught on to the base premise of the series, decides they think it too preachy, is not reason enough to plaster that point on the page[s]. That is their personal opinion. What they are saying is, "I don't like the books after all" That isn't reason enough to then, say "Goodkind changed his format and is now to preachy". We could say that the later novels hold a deeper/heaver Philosophical focus than the earlier books, but not "I don't like them anymore because he's to preachy". What we do see is that as Richard is faced with ever increasing problematic situation's, his core beliefs, his base values, are being shown to a greater extent...as the various situations arise. Remember people; we do not have a great deal of knowledge of Richards early years. We know an honest stepfather raised him, he had to some extent a mother who loved him very much, his Grandfather (Zedd) helped raised him, and would most assuredly have taught Richard (and we are also told this info as well), a great deal. We know that Richard was a woods guide and also dealt with some powerful people as he guided them through the woods. We know that Chase was also a friend and mentor/teacher to Richard. So we see that Richard has in fact a great deal of investment and knowledge of his values and philosophy. It is only coming out as we see the situations arise Mystar 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC) This page is about TG, not his novels. The inclusion of the quotes about his philosophical views and his writing style is a touchy subject which should be modified via consensus I think, especially given how much back and forth there is. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed the part where Goodkind's work "IS" about his philosophical views. It only becomes "touchy" when false and biased information is placed. Goodkind has made it very clear about his philosophical views, so that "is" in fact an "encyclopedic" point. Keeping people from posting negative and smearing commentary about his Philosophical views, is not allowed. Posting that his work is about them, "is". It is not opinion, it is not biased, and it is not contradictory to being sourced. The fact that some people may not care for or like the fact is not germane to the page. Mystar 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The article says he was born in 1948, so that photo can't be all that recent. Is there one available that isn't quite so old? Alienus 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I just got off the phone with Terry and he stated that he much prefers that photo, but if you give me an e-mail address I'll send you a few recent ones to post. mystar@chartermi.net will reach me faster than webmaster@terrygoodkind.net as I'll be out of town for the next few days. mysar1959

I sent you a letter by email, since you asked. Having said that, anyone can guess my gmail account name without straining their brains. :-)

As I see it, there's no reason for us not to honor his preference for the photo currently up. However, there's also no reason for us to exclude a more recent photo. I can imagine fan coming to a signing and failing to recognize Goodkind because all they've ever seen is this rather dated photo.

It is vital for Wikipedia purposes that you state the licensing constraints. Please take a look at this page for details, or just upload the images yourself. Whatever works. Alienus 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Mystar1959 was kind enough to provide three recent photos of Goodkind for use here. At his request, I've uploaded them, and I'd like you all to take a look and tell me which one(s) you'd like to add to the article.

Alienus 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any of them are necessary, but whatever floats your boat. Btw, that painting he has is awesome! I want it! 63.144.93.66 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of editorializing

The material I've removed is poorly sourced, and Goodkind's publicist has written to us claiming that the purported interview upon which it is based never took place. I don't believe that this section is relevant to the article anyway. It's unencyclopedic and POV-driven. These sorts of definitional issues are not relevant to Goodkind's life and work. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Biographical information, especially concerning the author's attitude towards writing, is highly relevant. Now, if Goodkind wishes to deny the factuality of the quotes, he's welcome to. It would then be up to us to determine if there is a substantial difference in credibility or if we would do best to simply let both sides speak.

In short, while I'm open to further work on this section, there is no excuse for removing it. In the meantime, let's leave the text alone. If you want to flag it with a sectional POV warning, that's reasonable. If you want to mark parts as uncited, that's also reasonable. Wholesale censorship, however, is unacceptable. Alienus 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing is not censorship. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct: censorship is a subset of editing. I suggest that you avoid this subset and stick to more constructive areas. Alienus 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah

Clean up of discussion page?

Would anyone mind if we clean up the discussion page? It's getting quite long now, especially with those images on it.

I'm a huge fan of Terry Goodkind. I'm the one who created all those gazillions of wikipedia SOT articles you see (no thanks required). However, I feel that the section in question on this page should not be removed. It has been re-worded and is no longer POV-driven. I believe it actually puts Goodkind in a favorable light. It shows how he is more than a uthor, he is a novelist and is revolutionizing the fantasy genre. It shows him the way he wants to be seen, using his own words nonetheless (how can that be POV?). If, for some reason, Terry has something against this being shown and wishes to retract or clarify what he said, then that should be added to this article as well, or the section can be modified in some other way if you want... but there's no reason to remove it completely in my opinion, especially since it actually shows Goodkind in a favorable light. Also, I think that the POV tag should be removed. 63.144.93.66 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we shuffle those three images links off into an archive, do you have any opinion on them? Alienus 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the images. I don't feel that it's necessary to add them to the page, but I'm not against it. I don't believe anyone would be unable to recognize him at a book signing, especially considering he'd be the one sitting behind the desk with a pen and a stack of his books and a line of people in front of him... Besides, I don't think his appearance has really changed all that much. 63.144.93.66 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the rather unflattering second picture, you might think he's aged a century and now tends to fall asleep while talking, so let's just throw that one out. The first would be ok, but it's a tiny picture, and he's a tiny part of it; I have to squint to see if he's in it at all. The last has a lot going for it, in that it's recent and accurate. The only problem is that it's HUGE. It wouldn't be hard to trim out all the background to leave just Goodkind in a chair, but I'm not sure that I'm the best person for such a task and I suspect that the original source of the image is not going to volunteer to help me on anything. Alienus 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we see just what an ass you realloy are. Just how is it that you assume that someone "tends to fall asleep while talking" jusyt looking at a picture? I think you are clearly showing your biase and why this page is having such problems. The problem is you and your allowing of personal poor judgment into it all. 66.0.21.162 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are violating both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, which says a lot about you, and nothing about me. It particularly shows that you have poor judgement and a short temper.

I said that the second picture makes him look very old and as if he tends to fall asleep while talking. You'll note that the photographer caught him in a blink, which is what leads to that perception. I said this to point out why the picture is unacceptable. If I were some insane Goodkind-basher, I'd be insisting on using whatever picture made him look worst.

You owe me an apology, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyone who lacks the courtesy to log in can't be expected to follow other courtesies. Alienus 17:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever owes anyone an apology. An apology that is given when due cannot truly be an apology in the first place. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The man said it. He dug a hole, which his supporters appear to be unable to realise that they are digging deeper. In any case, its not his writing which disturbs me as much as his dress sense in those photos.

I don't particularly see how calling fantasy a "tired, empty genre" can be looked at in a favorable light. Honestly though, I'm tired of debating it. Every time I try to make a point Goodkind's supporters either ignore it or lash back with insults. As long as the link to the original chat and the link to inchoatous's essay on it stays up I don't care what the article itself says. Anyone who reads either of them will see the truth. It's clear to me now that no criticism of Terry Goodkind will ever exist on wikipedia because GOD FORBID anyone say something unfavorable about someone's favorite author, whether it's true or not. Levid37

I agree that the fantasy genre is tired and empty compared to many other genres. Does that mean I should be looked at negatively as a person? The "truth" you're claiming is your own opinion and wikipedia is NPOV. 24.11.36.143 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Verifiability of "online chat"

A contributor has brought up the issue of usage of this online chat as a source for article content, given that the article in question at inchoatus.com, contains no sourcable information. The editorial points to a now nowhere-to-be-found online chat of Terry Goodkind and therefore fails WP:V. The information about Goodkind's opinions should be removed once and for all. Had this information been published in a credible news source, it would meet verifiability standards. Chat transcripts, incedentally, are not a credible source of information. Goodkind's opinions that are contained in this section, however likely they had been expressed, should not be considered factual and should be now removed from the article. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen to the pink triangle. --Cyde↔Weys 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing attempt to censor the contents of the online chat in an effort to whitewash Goodkind's rep. I prefer that the truth be told, so that people can decide for themselves. The entire chat was posted on Goodkind's official website, then removed once it was referenced in this article. Mirrors remain, as do verifiable articles that reference this chat, therefore any removal is not only premature, but constitutes a contination of the censorship effort. For this reason, I will continue to oppose such attempts. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to do one better than saying merely "mirrors remain" and "verifiable articles reference this chat". Can we please get some links? Remember WP:V. --Cyde↔Weys 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Al 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The interviews mentioned were not removed due to anyone getting negative feed back. If you haven't noticed the site is undergoing some updating. The interviews will be placed as they are quite specifically something Goodkind wishes, as well as his fans.

I take offices again at the underhanded attempts to place such POV opinion on a site that is supposed to be " encyclopedic" rather than a format for misinformation and a feeding frenzy for rabid anti Goodkind trolls to post false information. Lets get it right people.

As I search the links that were provided by whoever... they lead to nothing more than personal blog's, messages boards, but nothing of any professional or creditable content. I think we can all see the point here is not follow the rules, or provide "encyclopedic" information, but rather to get as much trash talk about the author, simply because some people think it funny. Oh, BTW, I do have the links and copy of said trolls discussing this very tactic. To place disparaging information. Saying "We should add this stuff to Goodkind Wikipedia page to drive his fan's nuts". SO tell "Al" me what is it that finds you not only incapable of following the rules and allowing trite content, but pushing it. The said links had nothing to do with anything more than offering up negative opinions and POV reviews that are not even from a professional source? That are just the musings of a wanna be critic? Not to mention the attempted little jibs at Goodkind character that these trolls keep trying to add?

24.236.196.174 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well be that the chat log was removed for incidental reasons, but the timing suggests otherwise. If I'm mistaken, though, then the best way to prove me wrong is to ensure that the chat log is restored on the site so we can link to it directly.

Through the miracle of Google cache, I have a full copy of the log, but there's a legal threat on the page, so I'm not going to post it up without permission. In the meantime, I'm linking to the Google cache (as their lawyers can handle the flak) and also linking to blogs that contain what I know to be accurate quotes from the chat log, as well as support the claim that some fans have reacted negatively to what they perceive as Goodkind's hubris.

There is such a thing as being pro or con, but there's also the middle ground of neutrality, which is often hated by the extremes. Al 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We have no problem with "middle" ground, and we WANT the interviews posted, BUT you seem to what? Think it funny to post links of people personal blogs, simply because they are derisive towards Goodkind, not to mention the links to message boards with nothing to do with the real interviews. MY original complaint was the fake interview, by Worthead et al. It was removed, yet now you seem to be as biased as these anti-Goodkind fans in placing anything that will sound of a negative tone. I have reviewed the rules and you have repeatedly violated the rules several times over. You sir are not being "Neutral", but rather are going out of your way to provide anything you can find that has a negative aspect, being provided to you by these same people.

As I have said, with any book, you will find people who agree and who also disagree. I see nowhere in any of any posts made by you on any other topic such a vehement disregard to the rules except this one. Not to mention your proclivity to insure that only negative commentary is posted at this site.

Again WIkipedia is supposed to be "encyclopedic" and not yours or anyone else "soap box" simply because they find they do not like the topis/person. 24.236.196.174

As for the afore mentioned interviews, you may or may not have noticed .com is undergoing a new look. Some of the content is not yet restored, but will be.

However, that is not the point. So Goodkind has an opinon of his works? So a few trolls got togather and asked Goodkind a loaded question, after posting that it was going to be a loaded question, and afterwards admidted that it was loaded... What you have is simply an interview. Some would wish to make more of it than it is. The point is that this site is for encyclopedic information and not for cross burning. You are allowing the cross burners a forum for their POV, when the site should be information as to the author and not petty gripes a few disgruntles ex-fans have.

I have reviewd many many other wilipedia pages and see nothing like the crap you keep allowing here.

So S'up with that eh?

This policy in a nutshell: Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. 1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links,

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

-àIt is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research.ß--

Wikipedia is not a battleground Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point Need I say more?Mystar

You've said a lot, but I don't see where you've specifically addressed the issues that are relevant to this article. Please do so. Al 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"MY original complaint was the fake interview, by Werthead et al". Please explain this comment as I cannot fathom the reasoning behind it. What fake interview are you referring to? I see that my comments earlier with regard to book sales have been deleted from this discussion page. I would like to know who did this and for what reasoning? Finally, you require a source to say that the SoT series has sold 50 million copies as there is absolutely no evidence for this. Tor's biggest-selling author has been repeatedly acknowledged by Tor themselves as Robert Jordan, who it is estimated has sold 20-30 million books. If you are saying that TG has sold nearly twice as many, you require proof, preferrably a direct quotation from a verifiable source at Tor Books.--Werthead 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mystar has provided a source for his 50 million claim. Unfortunately that source is hardly unbiased (TG's agent). A verifiable source from Tor Books itself would be preferred, if at all possible. TG's French publishers have suggested worldwide sales of 11 million, which concurs with other available data. That he has sold nearly five times as many seems highly improbable.--Werthead 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased or not, it is the duty of the agent to provide the numbers from "all" sources, not just what one or two may think the sales are. That someone may find a thing " improbable” doesn’t make it untrue. My contacts at Tor (Tom Doherty included), confirms the ever-expanding demand from the market for Goodkind's backlist. What worthead seems to be missing is that the "11 Million" figure is coming from "one" foreign source. And we should also remember that Goodkind has publishers in many various parts of the world. When you take the combined totals, including those in Russia, China, Italy, Japan, India, (the list goes on, the number is indeed very believable. Goodkind’s foreign sales are reaching higher and higher numbers weekly. The foreign sales of the Sword of Truth Series have been a pleasant surprise to many. My ties at Tor also confirm a high record number of foreign sales, not just in books but the exceptional number of sales of the Audio books as well. I also have close ties to the Audio publisher and they confirm a large increase in the Audio sales of the Series. I’m sorry this seems to cause some great discomfort, but I’m sure it isn’t, or shouldn’t be an end to your world.Mystar 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The amusing way you propogate your misinformation is not going to end my world any time soon. Nevertheless, until such time as your sales figures are verified by Tor Books themselves on their own page or in an interview with a reputable source, your figure remains highly questionable. I will allow it to stand with the caveat that source must be quoted in the article until such time as it is proven or disproven, however.--Werthead 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! sorry, I'm unable to stop laughing here... You have no choice but to let it stand, you have no authority otherwise. Like it or not, Tor is only a small COG in the wheel of sales. YOU may well not like the "reputable" source, but then again, what you don't like is irrelevant. Feel free to contact the myriad publishers and resellers world wide......"allow it to stand....roflmao.... Mystar

No. The onus is on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it. Wikipedia works on the basis of providing sources. You have provided a single source which would appear to be biased. Nevertheless, it is a source and thus is acceptable. You have not provided a single iota of evidence for your other points, but since you have restricted this hollow posturing to the talk page and not brought it onto the main page, this is irrelevant. And I have the ability, as does everyone here, to report offending contributors to the moderators, which is what I meant by that comment.--Werthead 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, stop editing my posts, that is indeed vandalizing and shall be reported as such! If you do not like how I spell or how I post, then I suggest you stop reading them. Mystar

I have not edited any of your posts at all, whilst on the other hand you have admitted deleting two of my points because you could not answer them with any verifiable facts. I suggest restricting your hypocrisy from now on. Thank you..--Werthead 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The on-line chats are fine. If you take them contextually and not read something into them that isn't there. Some have attempted to place an emotional inference into Goodkind's word that isn't there. Thus attempting to change the inflection of his answer. I know this is a very hard area to discern, given this media. Typing an answer is not the same thing as hearing it, seeing the eyes' the facial expressions and the demeanor of the one answering. The chate offer some good answers to questions. Mystar 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Online chat is a discussion between individuals who are not noteworthy in the same way a critic or author would be. It's just discussions between regular people, and their opinion because it is their opinion is not necessarily noteworthy. Did we get an official verdict on this kind of thing? Seems like a question for the people running Wikipedia. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

o.....k... If Goodkind is not noteworthy, then ...who is? I have placed WELL sourced Columnists, and random interviewers, and it has always been removed, usually by worthead, as being POV and therefore unacceptable. I disagree. What is not noteworthy as you said is personal opinion blogs whose only reason for existence is to demean Goodkind. Mystar 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Myself and others have already warned you repeatedly about personal attacks. I have added another warning to your talk page and will contact an admin to deal with your behavior. NeoFreak 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've attacked no one. I stated fact! There is NO attack or personal attack. I stated what happened. Mystar 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AHhhhh I see what your on about! Worthead/wErthead....lol... well excuse me then. I cut and paste everything for spell check befor I post it here, as I am (and ANYONE who knows me will attest)the worlds worst speller, "worthead" seems to be a "saved" edit in my spell check. After I spell check, I just cut and paste, I don't reread the post. I will endevor not to insult your friend Adam in the future by calling him anything other than "Werthead". my bad :) Mystar 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! OMG, dude, you have been warning mystar over misspellings? I'm sorry, but that is too funny. He IS one of the worst typists I have the pleasure of knowing, and he knows it. Ask anyone from tg.net about his lack of repairing broken spelling, and they will tell you about it. Omnilord 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Those were a few but not the only. In assuming good faith I'm inclined to believe him, and besides, it's a pretty good explanation :) NeoFreak 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alienus and Mystar

I begin to see the problem. After reviewing your talk page and seeing first hand the simply fact you have a problem. You have been blocked on numerous occasions for the same garbage you are doing here. You have been warned repeatedly and continue to violate the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Your personal opposition to anything Rand or of any objectivists is clear. How you were able to become a mod is beyond me. The simple fact is that you are not only creating, but also perpetuating rule breaking and continued violations and it need to be stopped. YOU have an aversion to allowing anyone/thing Rand or objectivist to be seen in a positive light. You seem to think that it is being fair to only allow disparaging or derogatory content to be placed.

We now see the problem. We call for an end to your personal war and biased. Shame on you AL. [[User:Mystar|Mystar] June 2006]

I'm going to assume good faith and remain civil. Sadly, doing so leaves me with nothing further to say. Perhaps if you stopped talking about me and started talking about the article, I might have something to contribute. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately As I have stated, you ignore the rules and keep placing inappropriate information and allow your personal distaste to run this page. You have nothing further to say, because I've hit the nail on the head. You have added improper content and insist on placement of negative and unnecessary content. You have not only allowed, but also placed and replaced personal blog’s of people simply due to the fact they have a personal issue and distain for the author. You have allowed links that are nothing more than POV bias against the author when he was attacked for his personal beliefs and defended himself. You have added non-neutral bias and refuse to follow the rules. One only has but to look at your talk page and see the problem that you will only allow your personal ideology against anyone of an objectivist standpoint. It is truly telling that these people worthead et al, are your "buddies", you have been blocked and reprimanded for such behavior on other Wikipedia pages and responded to your superiors with acerbic commentary. SO yes I am talking "TO" you as well as pointing out your failure to adhere to the policies you agreed to uphold. Mystar 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

1) It would be helpful if you could restore the original chat log to the web site sooner rather than later. This way, I no longer need to link to sources solely on the basis that they contain accurate quotes from the log.

2) Aside from not wanting blog links, was there anything in specific that you would change? Al 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The interviews and past chat section has been up for two months. http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/ipc.html

Though I again point out that you have gone over the edge with your determination to disparage Goodkind or myself or the Webmaster of another site with the false assumption that interviews were removed out of fear. You attempt to apply the appearance that someone is afraid these will be seen. Your placement and wording “but this was taken down shortly after some negative feedback by fans.” Again as I stated from the start are specific inflamatory designed to invoke a negitive reaction or the reader rather than invoke the reader to cerebration.

Again I point out that Wikipedia is not your personal soap box or stomping ground.

The fact that some few people find Goodkind responding to barbed question swith the aplumb and tactfullness not to their taste or perssonal liking has nothing to do with an informational page. If you wish garbage lieke that to be discussed, that is why Wikipedia has a “Discussion” page. Youporvlivity to push out assumed negitive overtones is not in keeping with the fan base even at a smal point. A few select group of rabble rousers wish to put forth their distane of Goodkind. Fine. That is why they have message boards. Wikipedia is not a message board, nor is it desgined to relay personal distaste, as you have shown to rule the face page.

The simple fact that Goodkind has his roots in Randian philosophy is not cause for you or others to try to decay his page. Reading your talk page is telling indeed. It not only shows your inability to follow the rules, but reads with the paranoia of a petty adolesent who has abused his power. Telling indeed.

YOU have allowed the term “Crazy” to not only be used but to be topic/title for a section within the discussion page. Goodkind has neither exibited such tendancy’s nor been accused of any thing more than supporting his values and beliefs. Goodkind again defends his POV with fact and consicely, accuratly exposes the question for what it is. Simply because a few lost souls have misunderstood and rejected Goodkinds works and words as execrable, does not give them license to falsly state that “Recently Goodkind has come under fire from critics and fans alike for comments he made about his work”. When only a couple of people have voiced their discent and not one critic has yet to state such a thing. Yes, one person who is nothing more than an opininated bloger has posted what he assumes to be a “Review” yet, he is not in any sence of the word anything more than an arimchair critic. He is neither a profesional or otherwise anything more than a bloger with a smelly armpit. We all have them.

SO you have a problem, I see you willing to remain sacrastic and unyealding to the proper eticutte and rules, in favor of your ability to edit in favor of your personal tastea and opinion. You have proven you have no “good faith” to which I can believe in. I have been proven wrong a time or two, but I’m usually spot on.

I shall take it to the next level. Mystar

Thanks for providing the a link to the chat log. Unfortunately, your edit wasn't quite right, but it was easy enough to fix. Now the article is much improved by having a good citation for that section. Al 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystar, Bastique has asked for a more specific link. From looking around, I wasn't sure which chat had the quotes that are in the article. Got a more specific link? Al 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Page has been Vanadalized

Never Mind, I figured out how to fix it.

It appears that someone has valdaized this page. They have changed the references of objectivisim, to communisim, and thrown a blurb in the online quote about him wanting people to commit suicide. Is there anyone out there that can fix this.

Regarding Mystar's Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor Quibble

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

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

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)

Fantasy author versus 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

Verifiabiltity of on-line chat

Oh, yeah, this was me. My apologies, now I've got a userid so I'll sign everything. Also, they were part of my involvement as more of a newbie, so I do apologies for the barbs that Mr. Willocx pointed out below. His comments are warranted and I am appropriately castigated. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ahhh well we begin to see what you are here for then. You must have missed the fact that "I" had nothing what so ever to do with that section's placement, AND "I" in fact was the one trying to eliminate it. I'll thank you to stop trying to place an overt biased from me to this page. I'm also referring you now to who ever is going to mod this thing, as you have just proven my point of being highly suspicious and most likely a sockpuppet, or someone who has worked to add NPOV content. I did however add a comment in response to the Negative slant and slanderous accusatory tone that was placed by Worthead. I also fail to see what your problem is to having a quote from Goodkind? This "is" after all a page about Goodkind! I fail to see why a page about Goodkind cannot have any commentary from Goodkind. Secondly, I will again ask you to stop your accusatory manor here and now! I am not and have NOT added anything that from Goodkind. Goodkind has NEVER asked me to add, alter or otherwise eliminate any content. I have said Goodkind liked this or that, or Goodkind didn't. I have also stated that Goodkind felt (after discussion with me suggesting it), it was good to have. SO, please get off your kick about Goodkind doing that through me. That is pure speculation on your part AND it is not in keeping with Good Faith. Personally I think the fantasy or Novelist thing is unnecessary. It is only something someone placed so they could input NPOV biased to make him appear more controversial. It is not pertinent or germane to this page. Perhaps after he is dead, and argument is ensued as to what his works are to be considered as, then it would have contextual merit, but not now or while he is living. Mystar 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I find it interesting that you would chastise others for an "accusatory manor" (manner?). I am again going to warn you to refrain from personal attacks esp against Werthead as he seems to be your favorite target. I have already refered the matter to the admin notice board for a previous personal attack. NeoFreak 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I am going to warn you NEO for your "accusatory manor" and attempting to make everything I say out to be an attack. I've made no attacks. I pointed out facts and personal attacks on me. Werthead, was infact making several Negitive and biased edits. I corrected them. Mystar 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've checked the reference for Fantasy designation, which links to http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/ipc.html. This page does not contain the quote on the page, as it is a links page, so I checked all of the links contained therein to interviews and chats. I can not find the quote, searching for the words "fantasy author" and "novelist". This is not an actual quote, so it should be properly referenced to the page where he denies writing fantasy, and reformatted to either be a quote, or to include his denail of being a fantasy author in some sort of summary. Further, in the VA Book Signing interview (http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/va.html), TG says "Let me give you an example of what irritates me most about fantasy and then I'm going to tell you what I like best about it and why I write fantasy." (Go to the link and search for the term "why I write fantasy". I would like the page to reflect this. In addition, I don't know who owns the link and updates the page. Since I suspect it is not an independent third party, I would challenge it's validity. But irrespective, if it is valid, the wiki page does not reflect the content of the reference it uses. I suggest changing the wiki page, but rather than doing so myself and getting e-yelled at, I present the above and welcome discussion. Since obviously my edits are suspect and frequently challenged, I leave this for someone else to do. Please address my points and not my person. WLU 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I knew you were just chomping at the bit to try and bring this tired old argument up, I first would have hoped you would have looked at the heading. It says, "Fantasy designation" it does not say "Fantasy Author or Novelist". This serves the purpose of the person reading an "informational" page to suffer through someone trying to post negative opinion about Goodkind and his works.

First, it's not a tired argument, it's unresolved. I haven't been editing because I'm waiting for replies and opinions. You attempting to portray it as concluded and finished is unwarranted. I could start editing again, but that would just make me a jerk. Second, being classified as a fantasy author is not negative, but it does give a context to his work, specifically the genre he writes in. I don't know where you get negative from. You could explain it on my talk page if you'd like, and not take up room here. Here's a link: User_talk:WLU, and feel free to correct it if I make an error on the link format. Since TG writes fantasy by his own admition, this section really should be named something else. I'll try to put in some suggestions below.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It states quite clearly "what" the series as generally considered. It further states "why" it is labeled as such. It does not stated Goodkind making any kind of statement that he does not write Fantasy. It however states exactly what Goodkind did say with regards to how "he" regards the content of his works. Let me clarify...again for you...Goodkind said, "When I write, I'm presenting a view of reality in which I base what I do on the ultimate value, which is life". "Fantasy is a genre that encompasses many things. I'm at one end of the spectrum. The books I write are first of all novels, not fantasy, and that is deliberate; I'm really writing books about human beings. I believe that it's invalid and unethical to write fantasy for fantasy's sake, because fantasy for fantasy's sake is non-objective. If you have no human themes or values, then you have no life as a base value. Fantasy for fantasy's sake is therefore pointless they are entertainment the same way a video game is entertainment. A video game is not a novel. A video game has no values, except to hone your skills at blowing up electronic people.

Let me clarify my terms, here. When we write, we naturally build a world for our characters, and this isn't at all what I'm talking about in this context. I'm here using the term world building to mean books that are driven by the details of the world, in which characters are only incidental. These books are measured by, and appreciated for, the complexity and details of the world, not the characters. They also lack the fundamental requirement of a good novel: a coherent plot. The story is incidental.

World-building books, as I mean it in this context, are much like establishing an elaborate train set in which the author is placing little plastic people just like the little plastic trees are placed in a train set - laying down in tremendous detail what this world is like. The people in these worlds are simply part of the set. I wouldn't like writing that kind of book because it is not about human themes".

So, when Goodkind states that (http://epic-mag.com/mar01/goodkind.html http://www.tor.com/interviewGoodkindnew.html http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030805003/tscript.htm http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw1708.html http://trashotron.com/agony/news/2003/07-28-03.htm#07-28-03 ) The list goes on. In these various interviews Goodkind states the same thing over and over again. " I am not, in the "essential" sense of the word, a fantasy author. To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals..." he is giving the person reading this interview...AND this "encyclopedic informational page the contextual basis for his work. The same as GRRM does with his statement, the same as Erickson, and the same as any author makes with regard to how he writes and why.

OK, if he says that, then put it in, particularly as the reference. I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding my essential point, not familiar with referencing, or if you fail to understand the logic behind it. When you put in an exact quotation, and by putting quotation marks around the sentences in the article, you are designating it as a quotation, it must match word-for-word barring elipses and square brackets. Then you cite it, with a weblink, or a reference to a textual work (i.e. Goodkind, 2002). This is so people coming to the page do not have to just take our word for it, but can see the actual quotation and decide for themselves. If you need any more help understanding referencing, I would be happy to explain it on my talk page: User_talk:WLU. So since he says he is a fantasy author, but there is a greater message behind his work, then it should read something more like "Contextual basis for his work" or something similar. Since he is considered a fantasy author by most people, he gets described as a fantasy author. Since he does not consider himself so, then we can put in either a quotation where he says as much (but we shouldn't, since this is an encyclopedic page, not a TG mouthpiece), or better yet, a neutral summary of his own beliefs. In either case, there should be a link to somewhere where he clearly states the background to his work. To put a quotation and then link to a page where the quotation does not exist, is sufficient to fail a class at any reputable institute of higher learning, and if you did so deliberately, pretty much equal to lying. If you made a mistake her, please take out the quotation and replace it, or put in the correct link where he says exactly what you quote him as saying.

See my recent edits of Steven Erikson's page to seen an example of a interpretative summary of an interview.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So we have the designation that the series "IS" considered fantasy, we have the rational as to "WHY" it is considered fantasy and we have Goodkind making a statement as to what he sees his works portraying and why.... OH and we also have Goodkind admitting that his works are sold as Fantasy....

We also have a page that states "While Goodkind does not view himself as a fantasy author, per se, he does acknowledge that his series is sold as fantasy for marketing reasons", so this is an error, and should be taken out. I'd say that the entire section should be re-written.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Soooo... I fail to see what your problem is. I made a statement on some other author’s pages when I saw such "quotes" from authors. I was told they have the right to comment on their own works, and when I asked for the exact quote, I was told to pay attention it is in the links. Now, reading through all myriads of pages when one clicks on their link it is near to imposable to find that specific reference... Still I was told ...so what, its there...

My problem is that the reference is fraudulent, and does not lead to the exact page it is supposed to. If other pages in Wikipedia contain quotations but the links do not lead to the exact words within the " " marks, something needs to change on those pages as well. If it's in quotes, you should essentially be able to copy any section of the text within the " " marks, click on the link, hit crtl-f, paste the section, hit enter, and it should be highlighted. Otherwise it's not a quote. If you can supply a page where TG says exactly "I am a novelist; I am not, in the "essential" sense of the word, a fantasy author. To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals", it can stay in. Otherwise, it must be taken out of quotation marks and summarized. Which leaves it open to interpretation, and you are not allowed to be the sole interpreter of the text, other editors of the page must agree with what is written. And you need to include the links that you are using to justify your interpretation.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SO I say.....so what. We have the "contextual references", we have the general sense of the word, and we have the fact that Goodkind states that his works are sold as fantasy... Do you want a pint of his blood as well?

How would blood help solve this argument? That's just silly. I would like the page to reflect what is included in the links you provide. Basically the only thing you could say given the reference provided is "TG has handed out his soup recipe, given a couple on-line chats about his books, and spoke at length in book stores." Anything past that, you have to click on the actual link, which means your reference is inaccurate.

This is another reason you are suspect, You are deliberatly hiding your real id, because you would be know. Let me say this, I find your attempts childish. have some respect for yourself and some honor... Mystar 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That completely fails to address what I am saying. It's an Ad hominem attack, it is a logical fallacy, and it completely fails to add anything to your argument. It's also a bit silly. Again, please address my points, and don't claim that me not using my real name in any way reduces the relevance of what I'm actually saying. It makes you look like you don't have any way of countering my argument, and I see it as basically a free pass at ignoring your responses.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Who do you think WLU "really is" and what fiendish and diabolical plot are you insinuating he's a part of? NeoFreak 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

lol... I think you're reading too much cloak and dagger into my concerns. I have and always will have a higher opinion of someone when they do not try and hide who they are. WLU is clearly hiding who his on-line persona is, because it would show his/her association and show the real intent. I simply seek to clarify the picture of his/her edits and arguments. Nothing "fiendish and diabolical", just the simple fact that some people are very adamant to smear Goodkind and add negative content in that attempt. They cannot handle the fact that Goodkind's books are more than "fantasy". This is why they always and only offer up their own narrow version of the content of the books, taking everything out of context in order to make it look something other than it is. Anyone can take anything out of context and make it appear something totally different than it is. I'm simply assuring that will not occur here. Mystar 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is it that you suspect WLU of "being". It would help alot of us understand where you are coming from. You do sound a little paranoid and when you refuse to get into any specifics about this Not Quite Sinister But Still Vicious Anti-Goodkind Conspiracy it makes you sound a little unreasonable. Any light you could shed on this would be most beneficial to the dialouge. NeoFreak 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - I have not tried to smear TG or edit his page in a negative way in a while. I read the wiki policies and they made sense, so now I'm trying to improve the quality of the page with verifiable information. You, in my opinion, are pushing an agenda. And again, the fact that you think who I am in any way alters the content of my arguments is false, and makes your points appear weak. Just trying to improve your editing. Note that there is very little 'smearing' of TG occurring on the page anymore, due to some extremely conscientious editing by current participants. I like to think I'm one of them.

By the way, I'm not trying to say his books aren't anything beyond fantasy, I'd happily include this in the page. But it has to reflect the actual content of the references.

WLU 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't we solve everyone's objections to this issue by writing it something along the lines of: "Goodkind admits to writing in the fantasy genre, but he perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy due to their focus on philosophical and human themes." Something like that. All we need is a sentence that conveys the idea that the novels are fantasy but also contain some other points of focus which are often not found in other traditional fantasy novels. - Runch 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Runch...lol.. As I look it over that is in fact what I've done. I've place content stating that it is fantasy, place the epic fantasy marker on each page...clearly showing its genera placement, quoted Goodkind as stating that it "is" sold as fantasy and much more! The sad fact is that these people will never be happy unless and until they are allowed to besmirch Goodkind and stop any one from reading Goodkind to make up their own mind. I point you to the anonymous troller taking potshots at me... I mean really am I supposed to stick out my bottom lip and let it quiver and then start blubbering like a baby... lol... The truth of the matter is that this poor lost soul has not only disqualified him/her self from every being taken as anything other than a petty immature child who is only able to spew forth lies and half-truths. As I stated so many time, take things out of context and you can make it seem like anything you want...

At any rate Runch I am in total agreement and I have been working to that point...as we can see...:)BUT I warn you,if I am for it, you can bet you sweet bippy that they will be against it!....lol... Mystar 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mystar, and took the liberty of editing the article page. I used the exact sentence suggested by Runch, and put in the proper referencing. I also put influences and themes into a single section; since the majority of his themes seem to be objectivist, I figured the two sections work well together and it means we don't have a single-sentence heading. Lovely.

WLU 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Do you think using the word "transcend(s)" to be too POV or to be putting word's in TG's mouth? It just seems to be a "clear", more exact way to say what is being said. NeoFreak 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean like "perceives his novels to transcend traditional fantasy" versus what is currently there ("perceives his novels to be more than just traditional fantasy")? I do think it is too POV. To me, the nuances of the word 'transcend' portray his work as if what he does is superior to traditional fantasy. Again, I think he'd agree, but I don't and there's a lot of people who seem to find that his constant inclusion of objectivist themes actually makes the series worse (i.e. better philosophy, worse fantasy). I'd be willing to put in a 'much' (i.e. 'much more') without a fight, especially if the phrase starts with 'he perceives'. I think the decision that what he does is far better than conventional fantasy is an opinion, and should not be included. And no quotes please! WLU 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More edits by mystar

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)

Mediation

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)

Official mediation

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)

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)

(Temporary stop to edits) 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)

My Beefs

My current beefs with the article are as follows. I’d really like to change them, I’d like consensus first. Could someone please respond to the points in below: 1. ”Goodkind was best known as an artist of realistic marine and wildlife paintings before the release of his novels” – The reference here is to Goodkind’s home page. I consider this a biased source for any reference. Also, it is an inaccurate depiction of the source itself. On the webpage it says “He took up an interests such as marine and wildlife art, cabinet making, violin making and rare artifact restoration”. The word realistic is not there. There are no examples of paintings that I can see – they could be impressionistic, monochrome, cubist, or even Pollack-style spatters, we have no way to judge. It also does not say anything about him being known for it. By the source, he could have painted thousands of canvases and stored them in his basement, sold them for millions, fed them to cats or been rejected by every single gallery where he tried to display them. I would prefer the line read “…carpenter, a violinmaker, a restorer of rare and exotic artifacts and antiques and also painted marine and wildlife before the release of his novels.” Or something similar. 2. ”All of Goodkind's novels have been bestsellers.” – this has no citation, there’s been back and forth on it, take it out until we can get citations in, sales figures, etc. 3. ”Regardless of the series' objectivist ties, many fans were initially attracted to the series because of Goodkind's ability to write an exciting, action-packed story.” – Source? I’ve read WFR, I wasn’t attracted by this, it was just another thick fantasy book, many of which I had enjoyed before. 4. ”Phantom, Goodkind's most recent novel, reached number one on the New York Times Best Seller list, a feat which none of his previous novels had yet to achieve.[7] [8]” This contradicts point 2 above as far as I can see. Reference 7 is to a blog, the when the entry was included it was speculative (“It will appear as number one on the NYT best sellers list. (most likely a week from this Sunday)”) and has not been updated with a link to the NYT. Plus, it says in the previous sentence “Phantom was number one in sales for it's first week of release.” Which is not the same thing as saying it was a best seller. So it needs a primary source to be credible as accurate – the NYT itself, perhaps a publisher’s website (not an agent’s) or something similar. 5. ”Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is generally considered a fantasy series by both readers and critics alike. The awards it has been nominated for or won are all fantasy-related, and since the series contains all the standard fantasy elements such as magic, a more or less medieval level of technology, and fictional countries, it has been marketed as a fantasy series.” – I really think this should remain in. I think it justifies itself well, the awards are referenced below, it compares elements within the novel to the wikipeida entry, and I think it passes face value for being works of the fantasy genre. In fact, I think this is pretty much beyond dispute. Fortunately I think this section has been acceptable for a while, but it does feed into the next sections. 6. “In an online chat[9] with fans, Goodkind aserts: "I am a novelist; I am not, in the essential sense of the word, a fantasy author. To define me as a fantasy writer is to misunderstand the context of my books by misidentifying their fundamentals...The books I write are about human problems....the human dimension is the only part that matters....the characters are the defining difference in my books." – I consider this paragraph to be absurd to the extreme, and I think TG is embarassing himself. But he’s free to do that by quotation. However, I think the elipses are disengenuous, because the statement is much more extreme in its entirety. As I’ve said before, all books about humans or anthropomorphic characters all have thoughts, emotions, etc. so saying that his are different because of some unique human problems, this bothers me. I’d be happier taking it out. I think it adds a heavy bias on the part of the author, and would be more appropriate on a “Terry Goodkind is self-important” page, either in Wikipedia or elsewhere. 7. ”Goodkind states that it was never his intention to market his books in the fantasy genre, but that this was done due to business considerations. He has explained that his books were further classified as fantasy due to their cover art, among other things. Goodkind has since replaced the cover art for a number of his novels, but his books are still sold in the fantasy section of bookstores and classified as fantasy by on-line vendors [10].” I like this section because it has an easily accessible way of seeing what the rest of the world has to say about the books. Since TG has many quotes on this page, I think this adds a nice counterpoint which balances things out. Plus, I wrote it. 8. ”Goodkind was also quoted as saying that his novels have "irrevocably changed the face of fantasy," which he described as a "tired empty genre." These statements have been the source of some debate among readers of fantasy. Although Goodkind has undoubtedly combined traditional elements of fantasy with other elements of literature and storytelling, saying that he has "irrevocably changed the face of fantasy" is a little extreme.[6]” Again, falls into the TG is self-important category. Changed the face of fantasy? There is nothing to back this up but his opinion. Unless there’s something to offset the extremity of the statement, there ain’t much reason for having it in. Adds bias, not information. 9. ”Regardless of the genre of his novels, Goodkind's main goal in writing is to inspire. 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." – Should be taken out for several reasons. No citation is the most minor. Another quote is a bigger, when there’s already a bunch on the page. Quotes should be used sparingly, not take up half the page. Third, and worst, this is totally his opinion. He has no idea why the average person reads his books or what people want to be told. People read books for many, many reasons, and there is no reason why TG should be considered important enough to state his opinion and have it treated and cited as fact. Those are my thoughts, sorry for length. I look forward to the comments from the community. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WLU replies to comments

Here are replies to PW's comments. >"Best known" doesn't necessarily mean he was famous for them... though I guess rephrasing it won't do any harm.

-The link just says he painted wildlife and marine, as part of a list of other jobs he did. Let's let the page show the same thing.

>We actually do seem to have a source, but it hasn't been put into the article due to the edit stop. The source says all books but the first two made it onto the NYT's list.

-I checked the NYT bestsellers list for a couple months. Chainfire was on it in 2005, here's the link - http://www.hawes.com/2005/0502.htm, I recommend splicing it into the page. If someone (i.e. whoever thinks it is important that this be on the page) wants to do this for all the books, all the power to them, I don't want to make the time.

>how does it contradict it? All but two books made it onto the NYT's list, but only Phantom topped it. Not sure what defines a "bestseller", but I'd say making it onto the #1 list on the NYT isn't bad.

-Good point. The definition should be obvious from the text - "Numerous of the books have made it onto the NYT bsl, and Phantom reached #1 as of xxxx" seems like the most accurate way of putting it.

>I don't know, I was a great deal more happy with this quote after I read the Lynn Flewelling interview with Goodkind, in which he phrases it differently

So there's a link to the blog or interview, but I was thinking that all the quotations could be put in wikiquotes, - no context to judge, just TG's words. Very objective, I think (ha!). Take them off the page but put in a link to wikiquotes.

Here are replies to Omnilord's comments >Terry's careers prior to becoming an author are most assuredly private matters that will not have citeable sources other than the information Terry has shared with us through his website. He wishes that the details of where he was working and such remain private, but he has shared the information that he has taken up the roles of a carpenter, violin maker, rare artifacts restoration specialist, etc. When it comes to private matters, the only source is the subject of the biography.

-Yeah, my beef isn't with that per se, it's the 'best known for', which I've seen no evidence for, just a list of jobs. Put marine-wildlife artist in that list, not 'best as'. One of many, not the most important. The source given doesn't say anything about 'best of', so unless TG decides to edit his own page to reflect this, we don't have a source, and at that point it becomes pretty much unusable because it is TG's judgement about his own work. We need something outside of terrygoodkind.net, .org, .whatever, we need something independent.

>Now, you said it is absurb to have that chat quote and that you think it should be removed. You have two people who are willing to back you up on that: Mystar and myself. That part of the article has been a source of contention for months because it is not only a misquote and taken out of context, it was placed there specifically with the intention of causing trouble by individuals who were diliberately vandalizing the article. It has been forced to remain there, intact, dispite edit after edit by mystar, myself, and a number of others who are no longer participating on Wikipedia.

-Take it out, put it in wikiquotes

>What is the point? The citation is linked to a dynamically generated page that changes frequently and irregularly the content it displays. As far as I can tell, it is just a recommended reading list. I don't think Amazon.com is useful unless you are directly linking to a specific, static page because of the nature of the website itself.

-The amazon link shows that other people, notably book vendors, consider his books fantasy. TG says it isn't, if we put that in, I think we can put in people who think he is. I think amazon is a great source for this because they are neutral, and sell to the public - they market the books to people who buy fantasy. They aren't putting them in the philosophy section, because philosophers would read them and freak out. Fantasy readers do not 'cause they've got swords, magic, dragons, no computers, etc. I can't really think of a way of getting around the changing nature of Amazon, but something less know but more stable could work. Other on-line vendors who's pages don't flip all the time? The page I originally linked to categorized the book and it was in SF/F>F>High Fantasy and several other categories that started with fantasy.

>8 & 9) They are direct quotes from the subject of the essay about what his motivations and beliefs of his series have been. While these are opinions, they are the subjects opinions, and as such can be included in this article, but would never be allowable on The Sword of Truth article.

-I think changed the face of fantasy and his goals could both be in wikiquotes with a link, perhaps to a statement "TG feels very strongly about his works and defended them in interviews and during on-line chats" or essays, I don't know the original source. It's got an encyclopedic summary, it's got a link to quotes, but it doesn't have the page-biasing impact that the words themselves do. It says more about him than it does his opinions on his work. I think they would be valuable on a "What TG thinks of his own novels" page or such the like, but not raw in the text. Plus, I think that might be considered original research or such the like. Maybe not. I'd like the idea of a summary, but not so much the actual quotes in an already quote-heavy novel. Comparing his entry to Steven Erikson's (pardon my point of reference), SE is very short, has no quotes, but a very brief summary of his own opinion of what he's writing. I think it's comparable. Reference Terry Pratchett as well, also GRRM - pretty short on the author, but lots of links to their works.

Replies to mystar <WLU said> What makes it official? Do you have a reference from TOR? Since the other publishers do not send the numbers to TOR, we can't rely on TOR for a ceiling figure, but they'll definitley give a floor figure, or an accurate one for the US and Canada. <Mystar said>Well, as a fatter of mact, I do! I also have material from Goodkind, BUT, as I stated earlier, I am suggesting that we use the figure we have listed on .net & .com, as Terry is not going to make his royalty numbers public, and with good reason!

-If you have them, provide them please, and I'll stop picking at it. .net and .com are not proper sources. We need something from the company. I'd even be OK with the agent as long as we said it was from the agent, and that there are other figures (and links to both, and that the link that wasn't his agent, wasn't to terrygoodkind.net/.org). Also note that linking the page to the wiki page for TOR doesn't work - it'd have to be external, to a page on the TOR website that said "TG has sold more than 20 million" (but that would contradict the figure from the agent I think). Linking to the TOR wiki doesn't work because people can edit the page - no verifiable, and because even if it said on the page, 'sold 20 mill copies of TG books', that would need a reference. In which case, we put that original reference on the TG page. This is standard academic referencing, this is how it is done in universities, government, schools, any document that has to be relied on for veracity, and as far as I know, wiki requires it as well. Also, I just looked at what's on the page right now, and the 20 million link doesn't seem to go anywhere. If it does, it seems to go back to his private webpage again, which I still have objections to as stated in "art".

>Secondly WLU, I am going to ask politely that you take a less hostile tone with me. I stated the facts as they are. Call Tor if you wish, call Harper Collins UK and they will tell you not every publisher reports to them. If you don't like that, it is not my problem. I have source material that you are not privy to. So me I am free to make public, some I'm asked not to. I do think however that my well-known association with Goodkind' gives my points creditability. If you disagree, that's not my problem.

-I think I am being at most, curt. Not hostile. I'm trying to keep my points brief, and just include the things that I think are relevant to the question. Calling TOR and HCUK won't help, we need webpages. If you have source material, give it. If you can't, it is not referenced. I think your association with TG detracts from your credibility, it detracts from your neutrality and makes your actions very close to having TG hiimself editing the page, which there are recommendations about. Just is there is reason to distrust what I say too. I could easily say I called TOR and they said his sales figures were abysmal, no-one can check this except me, and someone else who calls TOR, and has the same problem of verification, which is why we need a 3rd party website. I'll try to moderate my tone while retaining brevity. I'd like to think I'm using the same brevity with other users, but I could be wrong.

>Ok, I see a pattern here already. WLU, if all you are going to do is to argue and attempt to shoot anything down, I have a problem with you. I already am of the mind you just jumped in to be a fly in the ointment on this situation. We have no knowledge of you other than popping up and jumping on this bandwagon, and as I stated it is already looking like you are here just to decry any information I offer.

-The peer review process works to improve the quality of submissions. I'm not shooting you down, I'm requesting valuable information that you say you have, and will do nothing but enhance the article. Please reply to my points, not to the brevity of my association with the userid WLU. The talk page is designed for discussion to improve the article itself.

>Goodkind being a well-known artist is a well-known fact. If you took the time to read any interviews (written, audio or otherwise), articles, Statements from Goodkind and the myriad of pictures I've posted of his works on the MB's you would not be asking that question. You will find various statements about Goodkind's work as an artist. All you have to do is to look. It is not incumbent upon me to proof out to you what we already know, just to please you.

-It is incumbent on you to provide proof, not to please me but to justify what you are posting and editing. That he has produced realistic paintings I could believe. That he is well known for them, I do not. Because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere except here. The works themselves are not sufficient. Is there a different page we could talk this out on? I don't want to soak up more of TG discussion page. I think I have included an anonymous e-mail in my signup, so you could even talk to me via that address. If not, I might have my own page on wiki. The penguins link you provided is again to tg.net, is there a link to the gallery's website? A history of showings? A review by a newspaper? See NeoFreak's replies to your postings, I agree and would be repeating further if I discussed more.

>This "is" after all a page about Goodkind and what "he" is presenting. Not what you want his to present, but these are "his" books and as he has placed some specific situations and spend some amount of time crafting his work to show symbolism, that it becomes nessary that that fact be included as it would at that point be "encyclopedic" in nature. That being Goodkind is using it to make a point. It is not as you are trying to espouse "an inherently personal thing". It is in fact a part of what he is providing for the reader. Nothing It is a page about TG, not what he is presenting. If you want to, start a page on his symbolism. I won't comment on that, I would only edit for grammar and spelling. Possibly references, but that would also probably be considered original research. Symbolism is a characteristic of personal reality, see constructivist epistemology for more on this (if I managed to work the link).

>I am going to warn you NEO for your "accusatory manor" and attempting to make everything I say out to be an attack. I've made no attacks. I pointed out facts and personal attacks on me. Werthead, was infact making several Negitive and biased edits. I corrected them I disagree with you Mystar. I have found your posts to be very accusatory. I don't know if an arbitration will settle this or not, but I hope so. I am trying to improve as an editor, note that I have not insulted you, I have not called you names or accused you of anything except bias, which can also be said of me, and I've admitted it. I'm ignoring most of your posts because I don't really find them germane.

In summary - how about we put in general comments about what TG has said in the past, with counter-examples, link the general statements to wikiquotes where they can be retained in resplendent glory, someone who is motivated can find a specific link from each book to a NYT bestsellers list, a modification to his 'previous jobs' section to remove noteworthy re: paintings. Mystar can start a page about the symbolism and work with people who have read all the books in the series, as well as the major works of Ayn Rand, and show the objectivism links there. Everything subject to revision and adequate citation. I'll start with Chainfire. Comments? Please, if there is a better way to edit that's neater and more readable, please let me know. I'm doing this in a word processor and pasting it back into Talk:TG edit pages 'cause it's the only way I can do it coherently. If Mystar wants to discuss what should be a proper standard of proof with me on my own wikipage, I'll be happy to, or if I can figure out the e-mail thing. Apologies for length! Also, I archived a previous posting that was quite long, on fantasy author versus novelist.

Sorry, I forgot to sign in before adding my edits. WLU 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I'm not really following alot of that post, I'll have to reread it when I have some more time. About your purposed "counter-examples": this is not a place for a point, counter-point of TG's views. This is a biographical article that should contain the relavent material about him, not a place to argue about his views. This kind of thing is not only out of place but it can bring arguably justifiable complaints of POV. Leave the (as always relavent and citable) critical review of his works where it belongs: on those work's articles. NeoFreak 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy or not: a better quote (imho)

In that Lynn Flewelling interview, there is the following paragraph:

"I've always said fantasy is sort of 'stealth philosophy'," he explained. "It allows you to say things that sound very dramatic and get away with it. If you had characters in modern fiction say the same things as they're driving down the street in an Oldsmobile they'd sound ludicrous! Fantasy allows you bend the world and the situation to more clearly focus on the moral aspects of what's happening. In fantasy you can distill life down to the essence of your story."

Which, to me, sounds like a good explanation of Mr Goodkind's stance on the "fantasy or not" thing: he seems to say that it is fantasy, but that he uses fantasy as a tool to make his philosophy clearer, because in fantasy the situations are a bit more extreme, things are a bit more primitive, etc. So, what does everyone think of adding (part of) that paragraph? Given the controversy, I won't do it unless I get a go ahead from both WLU and Mystar, otherwise we're back to where we started. Paul Willocx 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think adding stuff to wikiquotes is a good way of addressing the quotation. If we take out everything about him saying he doesn't write fantasy and leave in that, I'd be happy. If there's anything in there saying explicitly that he does not write fantasy, I really think that it deserves a comment

As I've said all along I do not think WLU has any thing to add. He remains annon, and refuses to divulge his real identity, thus making anything he does fully suspect. Reading his contrib’s is like reading a blank book. We see his/her interest is in negative content and condemning everything positive about Goodkind. SO you'll excuse me if I do not have any faith in either asking for or using input from WLU. Perhaps IF WLU were to divulge his user name at ASOIAF it would go a ways into WLU's creditability.

Please reply to my comments, not my identity. How does me handing out my real name help make my arguments any more justified? Stop making it about me, make it about the page. At this point if I handed out my real identity, I'm kinda scared that you'd use it to fill my inbox with junk or something. What do you think about using wikiquotes? Would you like to find which books were NYT bestsellers and put in the links?

WLU 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"At this point if I handed out my real identity, I'm kinda scared that you'd use it to fill my inbox with junk or something". It IS about the page, however hiding behind the anonymity make your input suspect. And I'm not one, and you or anyone has never seen any such immature action from me... You will never find me doing anything even remotely close to that. I'm a professional I have scruples and ethics. The fact that you would even suggest something like that smacks of self-recrimination. Is that something you would do, you your friends? I sincerely hope not. I would like to think better of you than that. Perhaps if you were honest and upfront about your identity, rather than hiding, an open and honest respect could be established. I'm always more than willing to offer people a chance to prove themselves. Hiding your identity (when we both know you know I would know you) is again cause for suspicion and makes your opinion/input suspect.

At anyrate, wikiquotes may be the answer, as long as we can keep out the NPOV Mystar 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your last message, I fail to see how adding Lynn Flewelling on a Goodkind page is of any merit? I guess I'm confused. Either Goodkind can make a comment upon his works or he cannot. Adding content from someone else who is saying the same thing, as Goodkind is redundant and unnecessary.

The problem is simple. Goodkind states "I don't write Fantasy, in the "general" sense of the word". I find that very clear and free of any ambiguity. Goodkind further goes on to define his stance by adding, " I write stories that uplift and inspire...." I write about heroes...". Thus defining his stance. Yes his stories have all the elements "of" fantasy, and are set in the fantasy genera, but they are more then your typical epic fantasy story. So along comes people who's only desire is to smear Goodkind and take him down a peg for his stance, by editing his page. These so called genera purest do not have any desire to allow Goodkind any kind of voice about how he attributes his works. Personally I feel let people read his pages with out the section Fantasy -----. We have the Epic Fantasy tag on his page and that should suffice. If we start adding what you're suggesting, then they will vandalize the page by attempting to add NPOV and personal rant/blogs decrying Goodkind as this or that in their own opinion. I refuse to allow that to happen.

Lynn Fleming (the interview) is useless a source for anything except more thoughts about what TG thinks. It can't be used to justify stuff on the page except quotes, and what he thinks. So it could be on the page for some things, but not for stuff like NYT bestsellers, and previous occupations. That's just poor referencing. It's not about smearing TG, it's about credible sources. His novels doesn't have elements of fantasy, they are fantasy novels with strong themes and some blatant exposition of objectivist philosophy.

WLU 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful WLU, you’re showing your bias very clearly here, and are coming very close to slander, most certainly you smack of negative POV with that statement. We are all mature adults here (assumption on my part), please leave your personal negative opinion of Goodkind out of this and please also have some respect for the rest of us and the author to whom we are devoting a great deal of time to. It is not about what you think or feel his work is or isn't, it is about fact.

And what is the problem with what Goodkind thinks? It IS after all about Goodkind and his work, what he thins has merit. "His novels doesn't have elements of fantasy, they are fantasy novels with strong themes and some blatant exposition of objectivist philosophy".

Goodkind's Novels have elements of fantasy in them. They are set in a fictional world; they are also a thesis on objectivist philosophy. Even IF you don't wish to admit it, that is a fact. Your "opinion" is not what counts. That has been the problem with this page all along. As it was stated earlier, some one who has suddenly burst onto the world scene like Goodkind has may not have a world of citable sources, other than interviews. SO WHAT? That in no way eliminates the fact that it is true and is germane to the page. Mystar 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see a section (as others have) with a direct quote or two from Goodkind. It is after all a page ABOUT "Goodkind". It should have his opinion of his work. The problem with that is only people who despise him and want any readers to be tainted. Last night I compiled several sections from two message boards where these people are saying this very thing. They even go as far as to request that people come in and alter Goodkinds' pages to reflect NPOV, so that people will be turned off before they read or formulate an opinion. I also have a direct post showing that one person was identified for such action and banned for it, yet this person was asked to do so by members of this MB. I highly suspect one of them is in fact WLU, given WLU's stance so far.

At any rate, I am for building Goodkind's page constructively and in a manor that does not smear or demoralize his works.

Just my humble opinion. Mystar 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that in light of all the progress made here in the past week your accusations against WLU being a sockpuppet with intent to vadalize very discouraging. Unless you have some real tangible proof I suggest you keep these suspicions to yourself. Still I'm with Mystar 100% on the Flewelling quote. Goodkind has had plenty to say on the subject, he doesn't need someone else to put words in his mouth. This is why I've suggested a "Quote" section on the TG page as the man has alot to say about alot of things and there is plenty of precedence on other bio pages for a section like that. Plus this allows his points to be made directly and in his own words without the opinions or POV of editors to bleed through in the "translation" of the material. Again, most of the "debate" or review of his works are, again, best put on the pages devoted to those works and not a biographical article. NeoFreak 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears both of you have misunderstood me and not bothered to look at the interview in question - which is one of Ms. Flewelling *interviewing* Terry Goodkind. Obviously the quote is from Mr Goodkind himself, otherwise I wouldn't be suggesting it. I agree with Neo as far as WLU is concerned. Paul Willocx 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AH! I feel really dumb. I'm sorry, I've been up all night. I don't think the entire interview needs to be in there, maybe just a slice with a external link. A more in depth coverage of the interview might be appropriate on the SoT page. NeoFreak 15:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ack! So sorry Paul, my sincere apologies, I didn't take the hint to look it up and read it...sorry. I'll not make that mistake twice. I now think I'm in agreement with you on this point Mystar 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to say about the wikiquotes links? I think that is an excellent way of TG speaking for himself (literally) about his work without filling up half the page with long quotations. "TG has very strong opinions about his own work (link to wikiquotes)" and the quotes have their own section dealing with his own opinions on his own works. There's no need to interpret then, people can go there on their own and read it unaltered.

Mystar - have something to say about me rather than my edits or ideas? Let's use my talk page. WLU 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to reduce the length of the talk page by taking out everything that is superfluous. If anyone argues with specific sections, please replace them individually rather than reverting, unless I totally muck it up. the page is something like 125k. I'll try to archive stuff in an organized fashion. WLU 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, it would depend upon what you find "superfluous". What you may think inessential may well be what others or I need to see to respond properly. May I suggest we hold off for a bit? That is until more work and a consensus established? Mystar 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything is on the archive page. If there's something you feel is essential, you can put it back. The talk page is immensely long, it's hard to get any sense out of it. People can track recent changes by comparing versions. I apologize to anyone who thinks I took out anything currently vital - the content changes so quickly that anything dating back more than a week seems pretty much obsolete. I'll try to make my posts shorter from now on in. WLU 02:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)