Talk:Harlan Ellison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harlan Ellison article.
Article policies
This article was selected on the the Ohio portal as one of Wikipedia's best biographies related to Ohio.

Contents

[edit] California Sorcery

More on one of the sources: California Sorcery is a collection of fiction from "The Group" (California writers including Ray Bradbury, Harlan Ellison, and Robert Bloch who were responsible for the bulk of The Twilight Zone scripts). The book has an overview of the development of the group, with biographical details on each member provided there and, in brief, before that member's story.

[edit] Dangerous Visions

Look, Dangerous Visions may be a great short story collection. It may in fact be the greatest science fiction short story collection of all time; I don't know, but it's within the realm of possibility. However, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am removing the line, "and Dangerous Visions is widely considered the greatest and most influential SF anthology of all time." A claim like that needs some kind of evidence - a poll of fans from a known journal, for instance, or a bunch of quotes from other writers agreeing that it's the greatest. Some kind of back up for such an extraordinary claim. Until then, it really shouldn't be in the article. Andyandy68 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cordwainer Bird

Before I add certain data to the article, considering the controversy about HE, I thought it pertinent to put a query in this part of the data. Cordwainer Bird is given as a pseudonym of HE in the Controversy section, but that pseudonym was used by him for a few soft porn stories early in his career; only later as a protest for items that he wrote but disowned for one reason or another. This fact is given by himself in the book Strange Dreams. I would add it to the publicaions area if it seems reasonable. Dumarest

71.28.147.45 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 12/14/07 Just wanted to put here that I'm watching "Voyage to the bottom of the sea" episode "The Price of Doom" and the title credit shown is spelled exactly "Written by CORD WAINER BIRD" (with the space after Cord) unlike what the main article says is "cordwainer bid". It appears to be an original credit and not something done with the DVD edition.

  • Then, by all means, correct the article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

216.96.8.15 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Ok so I did as you suggested and sure enough someone reversed my change immediately even though I just watched the episode yesterday. Perhaps someone else could rent the show and independantly confirm I am not insane?

  • I just checked the article--your correction is there. If it is reverted, correct as need be in future.Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Dangerous Visions

Since this part is based on hearsay and rumor, it's pretty obvious why it keeps getting cut from a factual article.

Seems pretty factually-based to me. Which bits, exactly, do you think are unfounded or improperly qualified in the article? I'll need a lot more convincing before I'll let that paragraph stay deleted on this basis. Bryan 07:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That the only citation for the allegations about Last Dangerous Vision is from a book by Christopher Priest (the British author of INVERTED WORLD and "Palely Loitering," not the comics writer who later took the name as a pseudonym), which was intended to be provocative (Priest is one of several contributors to LDV who have expressed one degree or another of discontent with the delays).

  • Priest himself submitted a story for the anthology, but it was rejected.[citation needed] -- This is an unbalanced view of a minor point of controversy and should be cut. Priest has said all along -- since the earliest fanzine version of his polemic -- that he withdrew his story. Ellison later (several years later as I remember, in Aboriginal SF) made the counterclaim that it had been rejected. Priest continues to dispute this. --DeafMan 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Looking at this article in any depth, there are any number of links to "citation needed", most of which seem to have been there for some time, and most of which are used to tag well-known apocryphal stories about the author, which may well be current in fandom, but which probably result from Ellison telling a story about himself in a GoH speech and it passes the rounds. If there's a link to someone who can at least say, first-hand, that they heard Ellison say this of himself (or better yet, to Ellison saying it of himself) then that's allowable, though we need to be clear that what the source is. Likewise for Christopher Priest. But a lot of this is "I heard it somewhere and everyone says it's true", I think. Yonmei 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand if an apocryphal story about Ellison is well-known and current in fandom then it's best to include a description of it here with the explicit caveat that it is apocryphal. If we remove all mention of it then future editors will just keep re-adding it, or otherwise complaining about how the article's "missing" well-known pieces of information. There still need to be sources for this, of course, but if it's a well-known story then that shouldn't be hard. Bryan 07:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
But then, there needs to be some kind of source to show that the story is well-known and current in fandom. But a section of "Apocryphal Stories" which have no first-hand sourcing would be useful. Yonmei 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Platt "incident"

  • On the issue of the Charles Platt "incident", the paragraph comes across as unsubstaniated rumor mongering. A secret non-aggression "pact" that H.E. supposedly violated many times? Sounds libelous without further evidence. If we must keep this paragraph, I'd prefer to indicate it as an apocryphal story about this author, of which there are many. I'd even support a separate section devoted to these types of stories, as long as it is clear that the validity of many of them are in dispute (or at least that the details may have gotten grossly distorted over the years). If citations are available, they should be referenced. In any case, the paragraph does seem out of place to me (as opposed to the LDV paragraph, which, while apparently controversial, at least seems to be written in a factual manner) - chad.netzer
  • The idea of "secret non-aggression "pact"" is nonsense and should definitely be removed as inaccurate. It's a garbled version of a true part of the story, that they had a truce agreement at one time, which isn't a secret. There's a description about it from Charles Platt in the following message:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/e1b8b77a080e614a


--Seth Finkelstein 00:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I took out the part describing it as "apocryphal" because it lacks court documentation. Why? There's no *reason* there would be court documentation. Abritration agreements, if it even rose to that level of seriousness, are by definition extrajudicial. I wouldn't object to someone describing it as apocryphal if their response is better-reasoned.

[edit] Direct contact with Ellison / stubbing the article

Harlan Ellison contacted us to complain about several errors in this article. Danny is in communication (or will be) with him to get more details and research this a bit more. In the meantime, we should take it slow and easy with the article.

It is likely that the anon who copied text from Harlan Ellison's website was authorized to do so by Ellison. That text is problematic for us, in that it's written in a press release style, but of course the information there will be helpful to us in improving the article.

One problem is that Ellison has had trouble with a persistent detractor posting stuff on the web that isn't true (as I understand it), so we have to take even more care than we normally do in making sure that everything we say in the article is properly researched.

I'm sure we'll get it right soon, and in the meantime, I hope this note is helpful in clarifying what is going on.  :-)

Jimbo Wales 23:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been a couple of months now, is there a progress report? I popped by here in search of information about his lawsuit vs. AOL, and I find that that's among the deleted material even though it's quite well known and publically documented. Bryan 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, what's going on? Much of the removed material was informative and hardly objectionable even from HE self. --Malyctenar 11:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd also love to hear what's going on. GeneralPatton 13:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've put the question directly to Jimbo's user talk page now, in case he no longer has this article watchlisted. Lacking any further information I think restoring the old contents is the best course of action, I'll do that in a few days if nothing more comes up. Bryan 16:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And now it's been almost a month since I posted the question on Jimbo's talk page with no reply. I'm going to just restore all the deleted material now, if Harlan Ellison still has problems with it he can either edit it himself or point them out here for us to deal with publically. This article's been in complete stasis long enough. Bryan 16:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Dangerous Visions question

While digging for references on whether Ellison had first publication rights on the stories in Last Dangerous Visions, I came across a page ([1]) which states that authors who want to publish the stories they'd put in that book can pull their stories from LDV and do so. It says "In fact, at least one author has pulled a story, attempted to submit it elsewhere, and then RETURNED the story to TLDV when the results were not satisfactory." Does anyone know if that's true, and if so which author/story it was? Also, the article could use a better reference confirming that Ellison does indeed have first publication rights than the one I dug up, which merely indicates that Ellison believes he does (or believes he can get away with claiming that he does). Bryan 01:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should also mention this link in relation to the ones I added to the article: [2]. The relevant bit: "Harlan Ellison phoned about various Ansible pieces, saying in particular that his huge wrath at the inclusion of that Last Dangerous Visions story in NESFA's Cordwainer Smith collection had a lot to do with HE himself having partly rewritten Smith's imperfect draft for TLDV ... only to learn for the first time of the story's pre-emption (courtesy of the Scott Meredith agency) when he saw the NESFA volume." This doesn't affect the matter of who owns what rights, I just figured I should point it out for future reference. Bryan 01:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

An anonymous user changed the location of Harlan's birth to Cleveland. This is consistent with information provided at Ellison Webderland. Much of his early life was spent in Painesville, however, as noted in his writings. --WCFrancis 15:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection

Danny reverted the article and then protected it with the following summary:

19:14, 5 Jun 2005 Danny protected Harlan Ellison (for reasoning contact me privately)

Without adding a protected article tag or making any comment here on talk. This action strikes me as having pretty dubious standing, so I'm unprotecting the article. Bryan 06:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The inline link to "The Book on the Edge of Forever" appears to be dead.

[edit] Foolscap Debacle

I still think this is such a non-event that it really does not have a place in this article. I really don't think it is either very encyclopaedic, very noteworthy, and I doubt anyone is going to be interested in this in ten years. Am I totally off in my judgement? I'm just asking, because I keep shortening the write up, and I don't want to annoy people if they truly can make a case for this having a prominent place in the controversy section. --Codemonkey 22:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it hardly constitutes an important incident, but if you remove it, people will keep adding it back in. Best to wait a couple of years and remove it then. --221.249.13.34 05:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree stongly with Codemonkey that this rumor-mongering is totally out of place if Wikimedia is serious about being a real encyclopedia. It is highly POV (It was worse before the mention of Ellison's comments) reporting of a minor incident. I happen to believe Harlan's version. Giving weight to a rant posted on the internet by someone who either could not make the effort to even spell "Harlan" right in his posting or thought it would be a cute insult to spell it incorrectly is as inappropriate here as the personal attacks in that rant would be. Keeping it here weakens Wikipedia. If it were to result in an edit war, then page protection would be in order.WCFrancis 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I believe either of them 100%, but by whichever account you go by, it's still a pretty minor incident, if that. And I don't think we will have to wait years for the editing to die down. While the PA reader community is wonderful and capable of many great deeds, I seriously doubt their collective long term memory is big enough to last beyond 1 or 2 months with regards to a event such as this one. --Codemonkey 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Recentism. Couple of years? With luck, we can delete it in a month's time or so. –Hajor 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How about a couple of days? Just removed it. WCFrancis 03:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm reminded of this whenever I come across his name. Dorfl 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I saw his name mentioned in a SciFi article just last week and all I could remember about him was Gabes "I love your Star Wars FanFic" comment. I think the massive difference in relative fame alone justifies the inclusion of this event, Gabe and Tycho can draw in crowds of 37 thousand people over a single weekend, trying to ignore that is just a subjective bias. 82.144.224.90 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but this thread has been dead for over a year now. The general consensus is that the incident is to minor to be included in this article. I'm guessing the fact that you perceive the "relative fame" of Penny Arcade and Gabe to be greater than that of Ellison is probably a factor of age or experience. I assure you that the man who wrote the most well known episode of Star Trek, most recognized and controversial sf anthology and some of the most widely read short stories of the 20th century is at least as notable as the author of a web comic that's been around for less than ten years. 69.248.12.198 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A factor of age and experience, what a brilliant dismissal, bravo. But actually I think you're most likely spot on, I agree that this is a factor of age and experience. What your personal feelings are on the relative 'worth' of their works are you can't ignore the fact that it is their relative fame that defines whether the incident is worth mentioning. Now I'm sure penny arcade is not a site you visit often, and if you did any and all of the humour would be lost on you. You can't however ignore the facts that penny-arcade.com recieves over two million pageviews *per day*, runs its own childrens charity, hosts the largest computer game expo in the united states and has enough fans worldwide to justify the production of its own computer game. This is overwhelmingly against an author who hasn't published anything major in over a decade and whose only great claim to fame you mention was been an episode of a TV show that screened 40 years ago. Age and experience, I agree, your age, my experience. 82.144.243.247 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets say both of our experiences. I'm not trying to start a flame war here and you bring up some valid points. I don't know much about Penny Arcade; I had only read the comic a few times before your original post. Two million daily readers is nothing to sneeze at. But I'm sure you'll agree that neither is writing one of the most widely read and reprinted short stories in the English language ("Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman). Ellison's stories have also been adapted into award winning computer games. He's been creative consultant for several award winning television series (Babylon 5 for instance). His stories and scripts have won more awards than I care to list on the talk page. Penny Arcade has also won some prestigious awards, and I suspect that it will continue to do so. My point - and I think we can probably agree here - is that the importance of each subject depends on your frame of reference. It may be that Ellison is of relatively little importance the millions who read Penny Arcade. It may also be that Penny Arcade is of little importance the millions who read Ellison's work. (Neither is of much relative importance to say, William Shakespeare, another author who hasn't published anything major in over a decade :) ). That being the case, the incident that was discussed in this thread is of little importance to either subject and should probably be left out of the article. 69.248.12.198 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like fan protection, especially since Harlan's version of events is simply that he didn’t like them rather than he didn’t actually verbally assault them. I think it would be safe to say that on page views alone Penny Arcade is wider read (and thus more famous) than Ellison, IMHO it was this that caused the altercation. Since any changes on the PA page would be protected as feircly though I think it's best to leave the page alone, I'm sure Ellison is just overjoyed that someone is watching his back on wikipedia. (unsigned from IP address 62.49.6.235 10:23, 19 October 2005 )
Entry came back yesterday. Entered by unregistered user from IP 172.190.196.39 (AOL IP) who did not take part in this discussion here. I removed it again; I still consider it non-notable misunderstanding blown way out of proportion with no place in a serious encyclopedia. WCFrancis 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it was polite to remove all mention of an old man getting bitch-slapped in public. Regardless of who started it, it seems to be uncontested by both parties that Gabe pretty conclusively ended it. -- Rogerborg 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it strange that anyone wouldn't know what foolscap was, especially because it was part of that Convention's advertising: it had the word 'foolscap' and then 3 different definitions of it. So someone's having a go, here. Overall, this section is very silly. I don't think Wikipedia is a gossip column. Otherwise, wouldn't we be writing about everything our Celebs did, here? Bad form, overall. 24.207.42.17 03:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(restart tabs) Following this discussion, I deleted this section. The only citations provided were to Gabe's own page making it look like a vanity section. Yonmei 08:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

"All the same, Ellison has also garnered a controversial reputation, being fiercely protective of his work and of any copyright infringement." User:E Pluribus Anthony

How does protection of your work from theft garner a controversial reputation? Harlan is not the only writer to vigorously pursue every legal means of protection of his work. The implication that this is "controversial" is questionable at best.

Ellison has always been outspoken and has always had a low tolerance for fools, jerks and idiots. He can be strikingly caustic due to his mastery of the english language. Curmudgeon he may be but he has every right to protect every bit of his intellectual property.

I am not sure what word to substitute for "Controversy" in the later heading, but review of the material does not actually describe controversy as much as it does contentiousness, with the possible exception of his embracing of causes that were controversial at the time with total commitment. WCFrancis 17:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this: I disagree. Given the considerable body of information in the article and elsewhere (e.g., online and in other media) about HE's reputation, a spade is a spade. Someone who asserts their proprietary rights may or may not be controversial: there are (presumably) a plethora of individuals (particularly 'celebrities' and, more to the point, authors and commentators like HE) who assert their rights without being known for doing so. There's nothing inherently wrong with either, nor in being perceived a curmudgeon (and I've been so called!), but it needs to be said. Not including this upfront obfuscates the subject matter of concern; anything else may be semantics and possibly POV.
As well, perhaps the latter section can be entitled Reputation or similar, but the section heading is currently summative. E Pluribus Anthony 04:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed "fiercely litigious when he feels his rights or his work is threatened" to simply "fiercely litigious". Litigation implies a right has been threatened and so this is unnecessary. Whether that litigiousness was frivolous or meritorious is something that can be hashed out subsequently, but flabby writing aids no one. In that same vein I removed "justified or not" from comments about his reputation since, again, a reputation is presumed to not be the last word. I also changed an introductory sentence which claimed Ellison is "fiercely protective ... of copyright infringements" to something less counter-intuitive.(Unknown user)

And I changed the "fiercely litigious" line for another reason: it implies that Ellison fires off lawsuits over lesser or trivial issues. The text I entered ("Ellison is fiercely protective of his work, and has sought legal action against potential copyright infringements") is both accurate and without insinuation about litigiousness, fierce or otherwise. I also clipped two sentences from the "Last Dangerous Visions" section, as they were clearly written as an argument against Ellison rather than a presentation of fact. Signed, Brian Siano

And I have reverted Siano's changes. Litigious does not imply that one's suits are frivolous, it implies that they are numerous, as Ellison's undoubtedly are. Siano's argument amounts to this: true information that may lead one to a bad impression should be excised. Such is not the nature of encyclopedias or other non-propaganda sources.

In addition, I reinstated the details about Priest's book, including the rebuttal. The article as written did not fully balance the views of proponents and critics. Noting that Priest criticized his practices without showing *why* he did so renders the comment meaningless.

I removed the details about Priest's book because they were written in a manner intended to malign Ellison. Here is the text, with the questionable comments marked with a + sign: "Priest documented a half-dozen instances in which Ellison promised TLDV would appear within a year of the statement, but +of course those promises were unfulfilled+. (Why 'of course?') _Ellison has a record of fulfilling obligations in other instances, including to writers whose stories he solicited, and has expressed outrage at other editors who have displayed poor practices. This high demand on the ethics of others, however, has not resulted in Ellison returning TLDV stories to their authors or their estates._" (This is reaching for an effect, to insinuate that Elliuson is a hypocrite.) If you're going to write an encyclopedia entry, fine. Write one. But don't throw in this shoddy moralizing and editorial commentary, pretend it's merely "facts," and accuse others of censorship when they correct you.

Brian, I think you make some good points. But removing those sentences entirely is overkill. I have reinstates the Priest stuff BUT I have taken out the insuating parts--the "of course" and the "this high demand sentence". If you have an opinion on the litigious thing, I'd like to hear it.

litigious:

Adjective 1. Of, relating to, or characterized by litigation. 2. Tending to engage in lawsuits.

[edit] Ellison's Response

Ellison's response is not appropriate for an encylopedia. It reads like vandalism and the fact the subject himself wrote it is irrelevant. I'm not going to take it down just yet because I would like to hear competing arguments for its retention.

To who ever deleted the Ellison response to Wikipedia: Who are you to delete a response that the author wishes to have distributed? It says so in the text. How does it read like vandalism?

Response: because it's more of a rant than a biographical entry. This is not a place for people to give resumes or make personal correspondence. Is there *any* precedent for allowing an encylopedic subject to comment on his entry *within* the bio? Of course not. A fair compromise would, I think, be a link--but we have to vigilant to keept his from devolving into a screaming match, which is exactly what Ellison's rant was.

It's said above that it's irrelevant whether Ellison wrote it. I disagree. I think it's highly relevant. Because we all tend to view ourselves in less-than-objective light, a person's entry about themselves should be presumptively suspect. Structurally, it simply doesn't make sense--in the course of a very short biography, half the space will be devoted to what he thinks of one internet site??? If Ellison can point to factual inaccuracies, he should feel free to correct them, but his opinions on Wikipedia are not relevant here anymore than a more prominent's author's opinions on Encylopedia Britannica would be relevant there.

Hmm, I wonder why people don't feel obliged to sign their comments here? Makes it really hard to follow the argument, folks! PDD 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text of Ellison's Comments

HARLAN ELLISON

- Tuesday, December 6 2005 13:11:44

WIKIPEDIA PUSTULANT

Let me urge you to go to the link Mark O. has posted re Wikipedia, just previous to this. My fervent 2 cents (and with all this much-vaunted hossanah'ing of PCs, and how they'll make us a better species, how come the fuckin' things don't have a "cents" sign as did the cheesiest typewriter Back In The Day?), my two cents is entered YET AGAIN FOR THE ELEVENTH TIME, that the site, the idea, the concept, the execution, the content of the Wikipedia site is simply unadorned crap.

Let me stress thst. CRAP. Not just useless for reference if you give even the smallest shit about truth or accuracy or fairness or being courant, but DANGEROUS and HURTFUL CRAP that balms the egos of those whose idle hours compelled them to create this cesspool in the first place, in blind denial of the idiocy of the opening concept.

It is a stupid idea, deifying the urban myths and illogical personal twitches of anonymous know-nothings. It is the raising to the level of notice, the blathering and meanness of those who formerly had an adequate and appropriate soapbox on the corner, but who now have the aid and abettment of worldwide broadcasting. It is the enabling of half-witted and jejeune autodidacts who truly believe every paranoid conspiracy opinion they foam up in their brain-basin is worthy of dissemination, and is as "valuable" as real facts and Britannica-researched real information.

The Siegenthaler situation exactly parallels mine own, EVEN AFTER I played their silly little game and spoke to the several creators of the site personally, and then spent an hour or so revising and submitting an accurate (evenhanded, non-ax-honing) revision...which lasted for about an hour till the anonymous brigands formerly of Enemies of Ellison realized their long-posted scurrilous CRAP had been deleted...and they just punched in the previous CRAP all over again. And the Wizards of Wikipedia giggled, shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, see, that's the idea of Wikipedia. Nothing is permanent."

NOTHING IS PERMANENT???!!!!!!???????

gEEZus bleedin' whatever, this flies in the face of every basic instinct of the human race. The Great Wall of China, the Tower of Babel, the Great Library of Alexandria, the World Trade Towers, the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, all of Shakespeare's and Faulkner's and Shirley Jackson's writings, the begetting of children ... TO LAST, TO BE PERMANENT (even in the face of the futility of "eternal" permanence)(to defy death and the eroding sands of time, to leave a mark, to have BEEN HERE), to create that which does not slip and slide and fall away beneath our feet. To be permanent, as best it can be so.

IMpermanence = chaos.

Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

Those who are obsessed with disseminating "Chinese Whispers," who enjoy "Playing Telephone," who batten on creating gossip and rumor and the kind of paralogical CRAP that is as real as the "little fuck" anecdote allegedly about me, that Phil Klass cobbled up from a creaky old vaudeville-cum-Joe Miller Jokebook shtick, decades ago...that still lives on...

Those pus-bags will revel in using CRAP SITES like Wikipedia, and the even more egregious ancillary-sites that reproduce the CRAP without checking, thus spreading obscurantism and illiteracy further and further...

Those schmucks will not go away. But YOU PEOPLE have some very laudable degree of common sense. So stop blathering about "we should do this" and "we should do that" and lamenting what a nasty business this is. Because short of finding each and every one of these people (and who the hell knows how many that might be, on a million different topics) and putting a Glock to their head, and festooning the wall behind them with strawberry gliomas, even RUMINATING about buying into this set-up is no more than annoying and aggravating.

So unless you can hack your way in, to destroy Wikipedia from the tap root up, give it a pass, I beg you...give it a rest!

In sympathy with John Siegenthaler's father,

Yr. pal, Harlan
Posted by WCFrancis 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC).
Um, Harlan, if you're still reading this... you can get a cent sign (¢) by holding down the "Alt" key on your keyboard and, while holding it down, typing 0162 on the numeric keypad. Firebug 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I like much of HE's work; however, the above reads like a juvenile rant. If the above was written by him, it is badly written/styled and may give aspiring writers (and definitely Wikipedians) pause. And what's with the 'screaming'? In [cyber]space, no one can hear you scream. E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be more "Ellisonian" to say that I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. *Dan T.* 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed! That title reminds me of The Matrix, when Smith removes Neo's mouth on the spot, but he still 'screams' ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the story. They have this place called a library. If you really can't get away from the keyboard you can buy a book from Amazon.com. I don't recall what collection it's in, but do a little research. WCFrancis 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Case in point – your first sentence on its own would've been just fine. And your sarcasm and emphasis is necessary ... because? There are things called manners and respect. If you cannot comment rationally or civilly, don't. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to apologize for the sarcasm, which was out of line. I also failed to research it before opening my mouth keyboard. The story is available on the Sci-Fi.com site, with permission, I'm sure. The link is available at the end of the article I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. I immediately thought of the story when I saw the scene you mentioned and thought that it might be deliberate homage. I do recommend the story highly. I am embarassed by my sarcasm and my failure to check facts. WCFrancis 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, the story in question is online... apparently with Ellison's permission (he's vigorous in protecting his copyrights, so he'd certainly object if it wasn't!) *Dan T.* 04:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted. :) And thank you both for the constructivism! Now I must get away from this pesky keyboard ... ;) E Pluribus Anthony 04:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Without reading the rant, it seems highly unlikely that this is Harlan given the signature, "Yr. pal, Harlan". He would not abbreviate in such a way, even facetiously. JHG 11:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the board. HE uses that a lot. And I don't think Rick would allow sockpuppets. WCFrancis 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ellison: I absolutely love your stuff, and relish your embracing (creating?) controversy to the heavens. But IMHO you're flat wrong regarding Wikipedia. An IBM study done last year showed that vandalized entries are corrected in an average of 5 minutes. Another study compared Wiki entries side by side with Encyclopedia Britannica entries and found, where the quality of the articles was not equivalent, it was the EB entry that was found wanting. You're just upset because a life as filled with curmudgeonry as yours has been (I make zero claim to any lack of appropriateness of said curmudgeonry) has attracted detractors who, as all detractors do, say bad things the person they're detracting doesn't like (whether true or not). I wish like hell I had your talent, and I admire the life you've lived, but on this issue I think I'm on fair ground saying you're overreacting. Your devoted reader, Longshot14 17:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The above rant, which sure sounds like Harlan Ellison, should be enshrined permanently on this discussion page. May it be the one piece of text on Wikipedia that is permanent. Tempshill 06:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion! If the authorship could only be verified, there would be little need to recount the various "controversies" in an attempt to portray this almost sympathetically obnoxious enigma. Any residual of the usual wounded wonderment of Harlanites at the cruel and relentless conspiracy to paint HE as some kind of a kook would be answered in a stroke. And we could return to concentrating on his cutting-edge contributions to SF writing and fandom. At the Edgar Allan Poe article Poe's unusual personality is handled in one sentence: "Poe suffered from bouts of depression and madness, and he may have attempted suicide in 1848." Let it be with our own beloved, wayward Harlan! But not yet of course.Vendrov 07:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Funny you should say that. When I wrote the above response "Mr. Ellison:", I was about 900-ish pages into The Essential Ellison, a 1234-page Ellison anthology of short stories and novelettes. The final story came a day or two after I wrote the above words. It's called Xenogenesis and is an article about a speech he made at a con, for which he prepared by writing a startlingly large number of fellow writers regarding their Worst Fan Experiences(tm). Even with the author's caveat that 95+% of fans are nowhere near the rank calibre of the ones he describes, what he describes is enough to make anyone want to puke, spontaneously, and *not* in a cup to save for later.
I don't know whether the above rant is or is not Ellison, but now I think I begin to get a glimpse of why he feels that way. I stand by my statement regarding the utility of Wikipedia; but the frustration and outrage he's described not only for himself, but for Spider Robinson, Alan Dean Foster, Isaac Asimov, and (my personal favorite sf writer) David Gerrold, was enough to make me sick.
Should Mr. Ellison read these words (Ha!), I hope he knows I'm no Norman Epstein, either in hoped-for anonymity (my name is his for the asking) nor in temperament (no *way*). In any event, where I think he misses the mark re: Wiki is that many of the fights he's had to fight (rather I should say "documented in those articles I've read so far" had to fight) he did more or less on his own. But remember that 95+% bit. Wiki can cut, this is true. But despite the detractors Mr. Ellison has also garnered a great many fans and friends who can (and do) set the record straight.
Look at me. A Wiki n00b and already on a major hypertext high. "Set Pretentiousness=off" Longshot14 06:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleisher Suit

Why is there no mention of the suit against Ellison/Groth by Fleisher?

I've got the Comics Journal issue that was published right after that suit ended, with lots of info (though filtered through that publication's strong biases). Maybe I'll get it out over the weekend and take a stab at giving an account here. *Dan T.* 15:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The Fleischer suit is covered briefly and appropriately in the articles on Gary Groth and The Comics Journal. If anyone feels a need to add a link to those articles in a basic statement that it took place, they should do so. However, given the nature of this article on HE and the responses to it, I wouldn't recommend anything beyond that. Any lengthier comment would likely only incite further controversey, edit wars and unecessary argument. Lisapollison 06:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just *whose* site is a wasteland full of crap?

Given Ellison's opinion of Wikipedia expressed in the above rant, it was interesting to stumble upon this (aptly-titled) page in his own site:

What the Hell?

It's apparently "fed" by some sort of guestbook script where anybody can post stuff, unmoderated, and he doesn't seem to have made the slightest effort to clean out the voluminous heap of spam that has come in through that route. At present, it's got so much malformatted crud that the bottom part of the page is showing up in raw HTML code without rendering, probably due to some oddball code that's been inserted somewhere along the way. *Dan T.* 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

HE doesn't do his site - a volunteer does it. When I looked at it, it was still full of spam but no raw code like you described. WCFrancis 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's browser-dependent; the raw code still shows up for me (in the Mozilla suite). *Dan T.* 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm using Safari right now. So it probably is.
I checked with Firefox 1.5 for OS-X and it is indeed showing what you describe. Safari just stopped at the point that began. WCFrancis 03:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it quite clearly says "Anyway, add your guess as to what Harlan is doing here and it will be posted here on this page." (Emphasis added.) It does not claim to be factual or informative. Or an encyclopedia. WCFrancis 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Then I suppose the "guesses" of what Harlan is doing here include "texas holdem" and "viagra"... didn't know he was into that sort of thing... :-) But if the page was a wiki, then his friends and fans could help out by weeding out the junk. *Dan T.* 03:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If it was a wiki instead of just a script I would have cleaned it up. As it is, all I could do was email the webmaster. WCFrancis 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Volumes?

For whoever noted that there was a three-volume edition of Dangerous Visions and a two-volume edition of Again, Dangerous Visions (or whoever can answer me this)--What do you mean by this, and if so, where could I get it? Please reply on my talk page, at WAS. Thanks, WAS 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Cameron acknowledged Ellison's influence on his movies?

Can anyone provide a source for this? Sounds apocryphal to me. I'll remove it but reinstate it when a source is provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.195.33.107 (talk • contribs) .

How about IMDB trivia for The Terminator? [3]Quote follows:

"Science fiction author Harlan Ellison sued Cameron, claiming that the film was plagiarized from the two "The Outer Limits" (1963) episodes that Ellison wrote, namely "Soldier" and "Demon With a Glass Hand". The concept of "Skynet" could also have been borrowed from an Ellison short story called "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". The suit was settled out of court and newer prints of the film acknowledge Ellison."

I have also read that James Cameron admitted the similarities on a talk show, but do not currently have a source for that. Anyone help? wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Check out this Cameron bio, which gives info that appears verifiable that interview for Starlog was source of Cameron's admission of similarities to "a couple of Outer Limits episodes.". wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellison, Lester del Rey & L. Ron Hubbard

I've heard a story via Harlan Ellison, you can hear him recount it on an audio.com conversation between Robin Williams and Ellison, that it was Lester del Rey who suggested to L. Ron Hubbard he create his own religion after he overheard at a party Hubbard complaining about perpetual financial problems no matter how much he worked and no matter how much material he sold - of course there have been other stories floating around that it was Robert A. Heinlein or Issac Asimov who bet/dared him to do it - so has anybody heard or read any other sources for this story? LamontCranston 22:04, 24 January 2006

Quote: "Heinlein had told Hubbard in conversations in Philadelphia during World War II that a religion could successfully front anything in the U.S." - from http://members.aol.com/agplusone/robert_a._heinlein_a_biogr.htm -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 09:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is This?

I was just reading this article when I came across the following sentence at the end of the section 'Controversy.'

"Ellison has been known to kick puppies and throw rocks at old people."

Now, I'm still new to Wikipedia, but I'm *pretty* sure that isn't supposed to be there. As far as I can tell, this appears to have been added by someone at IP 146.244.138.230 at 05:14, 3 February 2006. - Square pear 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You have discovered one of the reasons Harlan considers Wikipedia to be pustulent (see above) or [4]. It is called vandalism. Since those who control Wikipedia insist on allowing anyone to edit almost anything, with no accountability, they depend on people like you or me to correct this kind of abuse. Vandals can be blocked but if they have a shared IP address this is useless. So there are no consequences.

Also see:

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if we didn't insist on allowing anyone to edit almost anything, then people like you and Square pear wouldn't be able to fix vandalism or other errors either. It's a tradeoff. Fortunately, all but the most dedicated vandals tend to quickly get bored of banging their heads against Wikipedia since it's easier to fix vandalism than it is to do it in the first place. Bryan 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to the practice of allowing anyone to edit anonymously, with the resulting lack of accountability. I would have no problem with being required to log in in order to edit (some wiki sites have that limitation); but I do have a problem with allowing anyone to edit without being logged in and accountable. Vandals do get bored and wander off, but all the time I wasted on vandalism watch convinced me that for every 9 that do that 10 or more appear. (This is not a real statistic but just a gut feeling that there is no way to keep up.) The good side of this is that there is the potential for more and more users willing to fight those with lies and made up facts, not to mention the purveyors of pointless filth and nonsense. Without some means of having accountability, there is always the potential for mischief, libel and slander in stealth vandalism entries. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you log in to edit then you're even more "anonymous" than if you don't. If you don't log in then your IP address is recorded permanently and publically, whereas if you do log in all that's known is your username (which doesn't have to be your real name, like I use, but can be any old string of text you can think of). As a prime example of this, see John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy - if Brian Chase had logged in with some random username to make his edit he would never have been identified. "Accountability" is not enhanced simply by requiring people to log in, you'd also need to have some way of ensuring people logged in with their real names. Bryan 04:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic books

I recall that Ellison was involved in writing some episodes of the Avengers and Hulk comics from the early 1970s. Shouldn't that be mentioned ?

-- Beardo 07:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

see http://www.sequentialellison.com/original.html and http://www.sequentialellison.com/original.html

The story "Hero of the Day" in the Incredible Hulk #286 was also inspired by The Soldier.

-- Chris411 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

see http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/hotday.htm

[edit] Hugo awards

It says he has won eight and half times - but ten items are listed. How ? -- Beardo 07:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He has won 81/2 Hugos for works he has actually written (or had a hand in writing, i. e. the story for the movie of A Boy and His Dog). He was given two special awards as editor of DV and A,DV, so these are not normally included in the final tally. Sir Rhosis 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who-related quote...

Accordingly, in 1979, he hath written up an introduction concerning the British cult show Doctor Who that has been printed quite a few times in Pinnacle novelisations of the series. Therein, he reflects that at the World Science Fiction Convention's lecture platform he states:

"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel;
Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano;
and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who!
And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!"
According to Angmering, Harlan subsequently claimed that he didn't actually write it after-all..
Is the latter true or false? DrWho42 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Angmering might be able to provide a source. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

Can we get a photo of Ellison here? Willerror 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan trademarked!?

I just got the latest Locus today and in it they refer several times to Harlan Ellison® -- what the devil is this all about? Hayford Peirce 01:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The phrase "Harlan Ellison" is a US Trademark, Registration #2655948, registered on 2002-12-03, for Good and Services "Printed matter, namely, books and magazine columns ...", "The name Harlan Ellison identifies a living individual whose consent is of record." -- Seth Finkelstein 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is a section from the Whovian discussion page

Harlan Ellison is definately a fan... Here I quote him, the highly critical science-fictioneer:

Whilst on the lecture platform of the World Science Fiction Convention in 1979...

"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!" DrWho42 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ellison also wrote the introduction to Pinnacle's US imprints of the Target novelisations, so he should definitely join the list. Martpol 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Indeed.. That's whereto I got my quote. (= Anyways, he admits to hating television and alot of its "science-fiction" save for this fine exception in the space-time wash.DrWho42 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Hasn't be subsequently claimed not to have actually written that introduction? Angmering 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC

Then that needs to be properly cited from the book. Simply refering to a talk page discussion is not citing a source. CovenantD 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, who was using Doctor Who fandom as a source? I was asking about the quote myself since it seem'd that it may not have been Harlan who wrote the intro. DrWho42 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Harlan Ellison Hates Wikipedia" meme

This meme is going around. http://dieseldecent.blogspot.com/2006/02/harlan-ellison-hates-wikipedia.html Mathiastck 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) apparently it leads right back to this page, right were I was going to ask about it :) Mathiastck 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Gone

Citation provided for apology regarding Hugo Ceremony incident is no longer available online. (Ref 5) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just scroll down, it's there...

[edit] Mensa

If the incident in which Ellison is said to have declared there were no women in Mensa is too rumor-licious I will delete it. I do have a source and the full text of the email. It sure as hell sounds like early Ellison, before his consciousness-raising in the early 70s by a group of Canadian feminists (described in The Other Glass Teat). Basically, the woman who wrote to me told me that Ellison was to speak at a fan-organized sf convention, Science Fiction Convention Northwest. I wish she'd given me a date for this incident -- I can write to her and ask for more details. He tried to push his way to the head of the line to sign into the hotel. Told by a woman ahead of him in line to wait his turn, he threatened to have the woman "thrown out of the con", then flashed his Mensa card and began talking about his high IQ, she revealed she had a high IQ also and said she was considering quitting Mensa since he was in it; his reply? "You can't be a Mensa member. You're just a woman!" There's more, but I won't go on. My point in citing this at all is to show that Ellison has shown himself capable of radically changing his views. --Bluejay Young 11:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Personal correspondence with anonymous convention organizer, August 18, 2000" just doesn't sound like a valid source to me. Without any more details, it just amounts to your saying "Trust me on this," and even if it were to be expanded with more details about who this was and what she said to you, it still wouldn't be a verifiable source, such as a book or article. *Dan T.* 11:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assault on Connie Willis at Hugo awards

Hi, Moralesnyc. Can you explain what your problem is with the current version of this section of the page? You and I are both at the three-revert limit for this page for today, so we may as well discuss it here. Yonmei 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents here: what is currently under that heading is misleading. When dealing with something of this nature, you know how reactionary people can get. If you want to tell the whole story, then tell the whole story. I noticed that some of the other things that Ellen Datlow talked about were left out. Try and be fair to everyone involved, hmm?
Oh, and if something like this is going to be included, why not include other things that he has done as well? Otherwise, this page looks like something from People magazine and not up to the high standards that I'd imagine Wikipedia is used to.24.207.42.17 03:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed how reactionary some people get when discussing Ellison's assault on Willis - many try to argue that his groping her in that ugly way was not important. That is reactionary, yes. There are links to both Ellen Datlow and Patrick Nielsen Hayden's full statements after witnessing Ellison's assault on Willis, where PNH makes the point that this kind of behavior from male "stars" in science-fiction fandom used to be regarded as semi-acceptable, and fandom has moved on - it no longer is.
On being Fair and Neutral: we have a responsibility to the readers. We have a responsibility to ourselves. We also have a responsibility to the author. The current section is unfair; I notice in the quote from E. Datlow it doesn't include the other important thing she says, that it wasn't sexual assault (and what she thought it was and its lack of importance). Also, what of Connie Willis? Have you contacted her and seen how she feels about it? One shouldn't feel obligated to say, using their personal feelings, that this incident was a certain way--they should go right to the source and respect their authority on the subject instead of putting in one's own ideas (and perhaps a sense of revenge/chastisement). Wikipedia is not for that. There are other sites that are better suited for that kind of activism. I view the event as none of my business. People have to learn to discern that, to be able to put aside their own feelings and go with what is for the good (especially avoiding *deciding* for Connie Willis and Harlan Ellison what happened and what should be done). I know what its like to feel powerless, to see a situation and feel angry and such at it, but I have to learn to separate those feelings from what happened and what is good. Its difficult, but worth it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'other things that he has done'. Do you feel that there are significant events missing from his biography? Yonmei 08:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People made such a big deal about this that I---long after the episode---had to investigate for myself. Let me state, for others like myself who will be slow to hear of the incident, not keeping their thumbs on the thready pulse of modern SF, you didn't miss much. I found video of the incident on Google and had to watch it twice to even see the offending "grope." Seriously, it was so unobtrusive I missed it the first time, Ms. Willis didn't respond to it and she laughed afterward. I don't know what lead up the event, but she was treating Ellison like a misbehaving child (perhaps with reason), and he responded by escalating his behavior. At worst, I think it was one of those spur-of-the-moment bad choices on Ellison's part; it was a far cry from rape, as some websites have tried to contend, and I would feign call it assault, except perhaps in the strictest legal sense. Would I do something like that? No. Was it tasteful? No. Was it surprising coming from Ellison? Not particularly.

cneron***

[edit] Boy and His Dog

The article said 'both the story and the film have been called sexist', but the source linked does not say that at all:

The story is, to my mind, somewhat different from the film; no one in the story is totally sympathetic or totally evil, and in particular the events surrounding the two main cnaracters’ escape from the story’s underground society—he’s an intruder and she’s a native, but both are misfits—are such as to preclude choosing one character as morally better than another. The story’s point seems to be that both the societies, above ground and under ground, are rotten. Furthemore, the story is told from the male character’s point of view, a technique that admits both his relative ignorance of the other people in the tale-and-his natural bias in favor of himself. Films do not have a narrator, and what is seen through the subjective point of view in the story becomes the objective truth of the film.

So... I'm changing it. It seems out of place in the biography, anyway.

[edit] Writer infobox

I put in a Template:Infobox Writer at the beginning of the article. Gaheris 00:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sexual Assault

Is it even appropriate to include an unsupported allegation of a sexual assault -- esp. one that is clearly identified as likely being an urban legend?

Jkp1187 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate if it were a story that someone else told of Harlan Ellison - indeed, it would potentially be libellous. But, as you will see if you check the references, the "unsupported allegation" is made by Harlan Ellison against himself: he published the story as a factual anecdote in 1978, with two other stories that he also asserts are factual anecdotes. Yonmei 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Can we have a citation for those articles? Jkp1187 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Yonmei 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To what source are you referring? Jkp1187 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The one I linked to just above in References, which is the first source linked to from the section entitled Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962. The actual name of the source in the References list is 1. Ellison, Harlan. The 3 Most Important Things in Life. If you click on the link and scroll down a little way to the first section, titled 1. SEX, you will find it's a self-incriminating account of a sexual assault that Ellison says he committed in 1962.
Sorry I wasn't clear at the start: I'm afraid I assumed you would be able to click on the links available in the article. They all seem to work at my end.Yonmei 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for government work! Jkp1187 02:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This anecdote can be found in "Stalking the Nightmare," by Harlan Ellison. I doubt that it's true, but if one reads the whole thing you'll find that the alleged female involved was coming on like the Killdozer, and had asked Ellison only moments before to hit her in order to sexually excite her. I'd have to say tying her to a piano was the lesser of two evils. cneron***

I agree that the anecdote reads like a misogynistic fantasy that Ellison probably dreamed up after the woman threw him out of the house. Nevertheless, Ellison tells it as a factual anecdote about himself, so as it stands, it is a story of a sexual assault he says he committed. Yonmei 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you say it with authority, does that make it so? cneron***

Harlan Ellison says it with authority: it's his anecdote that he himself claims to be factual.Yonmei 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting down to cases, exactly what's sexual about tying someone up and then leaving? cneron***

Is it your argument that this ought simply to be referred to as an assault? I disagree: the assault took place in a sexual context. Ellison deliberately turned a consensual sexual encounter into a nonconsensual assault. What do you feel is appropriate terminology for such a crime? Sexual assault is broadly defined and I think Ellison's behaviour would fall within it.Yonmei 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no sexual assault. There was no assault. At worst, it was a bad practical joke. Harlan, himself, describe this as the ... single kinkiest sexual encounter I ever had. It is hardly a self-incriminating account of sexual assault. Someone made a real bad judgement call here, bordering on vandalism.70.81.7.65

Thank you for your comments.
I read through various BDSM-related pages in wiki before making this entry, and found that in all instances, even in countries where consensual BDSM is legal, the key point is consent. The woman in Ellison's story did not consent to be left tied up, naked, and alone, and Ellison does not claim that she did: he asserts that he left there like that against her will. Assault seemed to be the best word to cover that situation, and Sexual assault as it had begun (though it had not ended) as a consensual sexual encounter.
Can you link to a site that makes the argument that tying someone up (naked or not) and leaving them alone so that they cannot free themselves is not assault? Or else an admission by Ellison that this story is not true, or is incomplete (that in fact he untied her, rather than walking off and leaving her)?
If you can think of a better way to describe the crime that Ellison says he committed (it makes no difference to the gravity of the offense that Ellison himself seems not to have thought of it as a crime) then please make your edits to the page. You might want to create an account. Yonmei 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not here to prove your fallacious argument for you. If you need more research, then by all means please do make an effort to prove your assertions, but don't expect me to bring to the table your proof of something that does not exist.

Legally you cannot have battery without assault; you cannot have assault with consent. And where lays Harlan's intent for sexual assault? In his story, he ties the woman to the surrounding living room furniture with her consent after she demanded that he hit her. She was clearly a danger to herself and others, and this was his way of extricating himself from the situation and is really an account on how Harlan avoided committing assault. How does this spin for you into a story about sexual assault?

Also, you cannot eat your cake and have it too. For you to claim it was a self-incriminating act, you must not substitute Harlan's lack of contrition for your self-righteous opinion. He must admit to sexual assault, which he most certainly does not (no matter how grave you believe the situation to be) , before anyone can say what he did is self-incriminating!

Are you sure this account is not just a story touted as true, as often fiction writers are want to do? After all, this story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. Let me read you something from the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that 'fantasy and reality have switched places in our time' by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...."

... Fantasy and reality have switched places?

Then there is this quote from Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."

If we cannot be sure the events even took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can you accuse the author of anything? The onus is on you to prove the events actually did happen, and not create a work of fiction of your own in the process.

On the basis of simple doubt alone, your arguments are moot, and I now believe the entire entry should be removed.70.81.7.65

Thank you for your comments. Yonmei 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The references are from a work of fiction that is related as a humorous anecdote. This is no evidence beyond choosing the first person and retelling in the first person that Harlan claims this story is true. He may have chose the first person to give it the stand-up comedy feel King refers to. You can't take things at face value. As such I dispute the sources as a "confession." There is no evidence that this is a sexual assault. This was published almost 30 years ago. If it was viewed at the time of publication as a confession to a sexual assault or at any point after, then you should be able find evidence that the police investigated. Everything that happens in the story is consensual, until he leaves. I dispute that it is sexual assault, and the references don't establish that it is. I dispute that it is similar to the urban legend. The source itself contradicts the assertion that is similar stating "The earliest known printed reference to this legend is Paul Smith's 1986 Book of Nastier Legends." The legend involves an accident involving bondage play, not a prank. I dispute it is similar to the urban legend. Lastly and most importantly there is no evidence this was a controversy before it was posted here. It should be obvious that for inclusion in the controversies section there should be some evidence in the sources that it was considered controversial. This has been in print for almost 30 years. Who found it controversial and when and was the outcry of encyclopedic significance? I see no evidence of any controversy that wasn't invented by improperly including it here. Gripdamage

[edit] Controversies: "Jelly Beans" and "Racism"

Both of these anecdotes were posted without sources in the Controversies section.

[edit] Inclusion/Deletion?

My feeling is that the "jelly bean" incident is mere gossip, though if the assault is proven from a published source, it can be included. But without any sources I don't think it's appropriate for this page: it qualifies as an anecdote rather than data. Also, it would need to be edited to make it encyclopedic rather than gossip-columny. Yonmei 09:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The racism incident, if it can be documented (a link to the original interview or some published account of it, etc) would seem valid to include on the page. Yonmei 09:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Jelly Bean" Incident

In the 1980's, Ellison had vehemently made a demand of his fans, during some of his lectures while on the fan convention circuit, that they cease and desist in harassing him with regards to the source of the Harlequin's endless supply of jelly beans. During one particular convention, shortly after one of his lectures, Ellison reportedly became smitten with an unnamed female fan who, by all accounts, was "a stunning, well-endowed blonde" who happened to be ~2" shorter than Ellison. He pursued the woman around the convention floor, and after some effort managed to persuade her that the stories of Harlan Ellison being a "tempermental monster" were grossly exaggerated. They were a pair briefly during the convention, but due to a gag played on Ellison by several fans and a few of the merchandise dealers, the pairing was sundered in a very explosive manner. While one dealer and a fan had distracted Harlan with a ruse of having him verify that two signed copies of one of his books were in fact legitimate, another fan handed the woman a bag of jelly beans, instructing her that she should give Ellison the bag as a "token of her admiration", as these were Ellison's favorite candy.

According to all accounts, when the woman unsuspectingly handed Ellison the bag, Ellison became violently enraged. Screaming loudly, he vulgarily chastised the woman, and in what was arguably an act of assault forcibly slapped the bag upwards from the woman's grasp, sending jelly beans arcing across the convention hall in all directions. Ellison then reportedly stormed off through the crowds that had gathered, shoving attendees out of the way, and by one account punched a security guard in the stomach as he left the hall. The woman, clearly shocked and almost hysterical in grief from the verbal and physical assault, reportedly was escorted to her room by one of the convention officials, and was never seen for the rest of the convention.

Note that while many SF authors, including Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, and even Arthur C. Clarke have confirmed and even retold the story on occasion, both Ellison and some of his staunchest supporters - including Tom Galloway - have vehemently denied the incident took place, and in recent years Ellison refuses to discuss the matter, much less any issues regarding jelly beans.

I'm sorry...I think you must be mistaken: there probably is no one who is "2 inches shorter than Ellison" - please check your facts:)Vendrov 06:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

In 1984, Ellison was misquoted as having made racist remarks regarding all non-caucasian minorities. According to transcripts of the interview where he made the statements, he was quoted as saying he was not bigoted, and that he hated everybody, including "niggers, chinks, honkeys, wops, dagos, spicks, wetbacks, gooks, nips, slants, crackers and junglebunnies." The two journalists who misquoted Ellison later apologized for having left out the caucasian-specific epithets in their report, but Ellison still drew criticism for having made the statement in the first place.

Satire, obviously, is becoming harder and harder for people to recognize. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies and Pastisches of Ellison

In the late Seventies or early 80s, I read a short story, I think in one of the monthly SF magazines. I don't remember anything about it other than that the author included a number of prominent SF writers in transparent disguise. Ellison was featured as "Ellen Harlanson". If this jogs anyone else's memory, please post it! Thanks. The Sanity Inspector 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I always wondered if David Gerrold's "When H.A.R.L.I.E. was One" was at least a nod to Ellison. Last I recall, Gerrold was a friend of Ellison, and the timing is about right - it came out in Ellison's heyday of the 1970's.

Bimbos of the Death Sun by Sharyn Mccrumb is a novel about a contentious writer at a convention, but I don't think it's a parody of Ellison. Ellson can't be the only convention terror, and the rest of the handling feels different from what I know of Ellison through his author's notes. TaoPhoenix 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless reference to Sexual Behavior in 1962

Removed the following which had no place and no reason to be in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article and which could be taken as a personal attack:

Account of kinky sexual liaison in 1962
In 1978 Harlan Ellison recounted as if telling a factual story[1] how in 1962 he had ended a consensual sexual encounter, after tying his partner in the living-room of her parents' house so that she was naked and unable to move or release herself, by leaving her there to be discovered by her parents. The veracity of his own account cannot be determined; it resembles a common urban legend[2].

Also changed subtitle that may have been legally actionable and was undoubtedly a personal attack. It was put up 22 November 2006, reverted 28 November 2006, and has been there until now. Look for this abuse to return soon.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The US Federal government's definition of sexual assault includes "inappropriate touching" (see [5]) Ellison's sexual assault on Willis at the Hugo Awards is thoroughly documented to an unusual extent for any encyclopedia: to use correct terminology for an event that is completely verifiable is certainly not actionable.
The first of the 'Three Most Important Things' anecdote was retitled by an anon editor who objected to having Ellison's self-described behavior referred to as 'sexual assault'. I put it back in because it is sourced as well as any of the other controversies and is certainly notable: Ellison not only published the anecdote he told, but is reported to have recounted it several times at conventions. Yonmei 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Provided it is from a reliable sourced (it is) and we make it clear it's veracity is uncertain (we do) there are only two other issues. Is it sufficiently noteable (appears to be but can't say for sure) and is it documented as controversial (no clear info on this)? The fact that you and I may think it is controversial is irrelevant if it isn't documented as controversial. Given it's noteability, there might be merit to include it somewhere else if it isn't documented as controversial but not in the controversies section Nil Einne 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Will try to find documentation of controversy: what controversy I'm aware of occurred exclusively in fandom, which tends not to be documented up to Wikipedia standards. Yonmei 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted portion had nothing to do with Connie Willis incident. It was the quoted section from his essay. Pointless, with a title that amounts to a personal attack. It came back. It has been removed again. Please do not turn this into an edit war, but consider why you feel the need to hate Mr. Ellison and to continual find ways to attack him in an encyclopedia.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remember: assume good faith. Accusations that wiki editors include information in biographies based on personal animosity towards the subject, is hardly an assumption of good faith. This anecdote is directly sourced to Ellison: it may or may not to be true, but not only did he repeat it at several conventions, he also published it under his own name as something he had done. It is therefore quite literally a self-incriminating account of a sexual assault Ellison carried out, or said he did, in 1962. The argument has been made that this is "not controversial", and therefore ought to be under a different section: I cannot, however, see any good reason to remove it altogether: though as you will see other anecdotes that are not sourced have been removed. Yonmei 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I can still see no reason that this incident should even be in an "encyclopedia", even a self-labeled one. Use of the inflammatory label "sexual assault" appears to meet standard of personal attack, and if it cannot be supported in its legal meaning, it is actionable.
I also do not see why that particular terminology is so important when there are other terms that would not look like personal attack could easily be substituted. The insistance on the use of the term assault is my reason for not being able to assume good faith. (Aside: "assume good faith" is a principle to allow discussion regarding editorial choices, not to allow anyone to put anything in just because they are acting in "good faith".)
I still contend that, regardless of terminology, inclusion is pointless and creates an interruption to the flow of the article, which is already choppy and in need of a true editor.
Note also that I predicted this edit skirmish would happen. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed as pointless today. It broke up flow of article and had no point or other reason to be here.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan Ellison - blackface minstrel performer?

The category blackface minstrel performer was just added to the page, and when I queried the editor who added it, he helpfully pointed out that there's a line in the biography:

"As a child, he had a brief career performing in minstrel shows."

Does "minstrel shows" here mean "blackface minstrel shows"? If yes, I think the page should be amended: I didn't get it, and wondered why the category had been added at all. Yonmei 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The category description says "This category is for performers for whom blackface acts or minstrel shows made up a significant portion of their careers." Does Harlan Ellison really qualify? I think not, myself, and am going to be bold and remove the category. If his childhood career as a minstrel singer was really that significant, someone who knows more about this aspect of Ellisod's youth than I do can restore it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other parody/pastiche

There was a Black Widowers story written after Asimov's death in EQMM (it appears to be "The Last Story" by Charles Ardai) involving a series of anthologies _Far Visions_, _Farther Visions_, and the unpublished _Farthest Visions_. I can't find my copy to give the name of the Ellison analog, however. 24.107.92.58 00:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girlie Mags

Hello, Atomaton - I am really & truly puzzled as to why you have such a strong objection to leaving that short clause in the article. It's no different than any of the other hundreds of bits of "color" that are strewn throughout the article. Your edit summary suggests either that you are literally unfamiliar with the term -- or alternatively, that you object to its use (for some unspecified reason). I was a little doubtful that it was actually unfamiliarity -- I mean, what are the odds that someone has never heard the term, or couldn't at least infer the meaning from the context. So I figured it was time to take a look at your user page to see if there were any clues as to where you were coming from. (Did I say clues? wow, what an understatement! :)

Now, I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that you really have never come across the term -- but given your amazingly wide knowledge of human sexuality, etc. that strikes me as exceedingly unlikely! :) So, that would appear to leave us with some sort of personal objection to the term -- even though it is, in fact, precisely the correct term to use here. In which case your insistence on deleting the "offending passage" would amount to a clear case of POV pushing (or some variant of that phrase). I realize that I'm making a sort of educated guess here, so if there is some other basis for your objection, please fill me in on what that might be. (By the way, I presume you noticed that I didn't take issue with your change from "soft porn" to "erotica". Personally, I think either is acceptable, but if you think erotica is preferable, that's fine with me.)

Just in case you're not entirely clear what "girlie mags" are, here's a short essay (I found it just now thru a google search) which conveys a pretty good sense of the concept:

"Girlie Magazines" A Love Affair, Right or Wrong

In any event, I hope you can see your way to putting aside your objections. There's got to be better things for us both to be putting our energies into! Cgingold 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the discussion. I edit a wide variety of sexuality and sexology articles, and so naturally am familiar with the term "girlie magazines". As an editor I try to remain objective, rather than introduce personal issues. I frequently make and support edits that are not directly in line with my personal views on a subject. Here are my editorial opinions on this minor issue:

  • The term "girlie magazines" is archaic, and hasn't been used since the sixties. You say that using the term adds "color" to the article. I think that it looks strange, and that most of the young readers of today aren't familiar with the term.
  • The manner in which you use the term, I feel would seem to readers, as well as potentially Mr. Ellison himself, as a derogatory reference. The attempt to add color, IMO, colors it to suggest something derogatory. As this is a Biography of a Living Person, we are very aggresive about not having anything in the article that is derogatory or slanderous. If you know the names of the magazines that he wrote for, why not put them down. If you say he wrote for say, "Flame", "Confidential", or "Cabaret", then say so. (if not, why not avoid characterizing it altogether, and let the reader decide) One can't argue with the facts. When you characterize the kinds of magazines that a person wrote for as "girlie magazines", indeed you give it color. Color that could be considered negatively.

I'm interested in a factual representation of Mr. Ellison. Any rumors, innuendo, slander, or "color" are not appropriate in a biography of a living person (BLP). Wikipedias holds articles in that category to a substantially higher standard than other articles. If you say anything that could be considered to be negative, it has to have very concrete citations and references.

As for porn versus erotica. That is minor, but writing about sexuality is usually called "erotica", especially when it is what you term as "soft". "Porn" are usually visual depictions of sexuality, and usually ones that are what most people call "obscene". Given that it is writing about sexuality, and was written and published in the 60's, erotica would be the most appropriate term. I am aware that the term is mis-used, and so frequently used to mean pretty much anything that is "objectionable". I feel that, especially in these jaded times, most editors would evaluate Mr. Ellisons writing to be "erotica". Secondary, of course, is that suggesting that this author wrote "pornography" (besides the mis-use of the term) could be considered to be derogatory. To do so would require solid citations to prove your point. As "girlie magazines" were not pornographic, that might be difficult to do.

Regards, Atom 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again -
In reverse order: like I said, I have no problem whatsoever with your change to "erotica", I wasn't arguing it one way or the other. (Just so you know, I didn't write that passage in the first place, so "soft porn" wasn't my term of choice, in any event.)
On the subject of "girlie mags" -- well, of course it's an "archaic" term, in a sense that's the point of using it -- precisely because that IS what they were called back then. It wasn't archaic at the time! :) The person who originally wrote that passage bizarrely used the term "girlie journals", which I thought was rather amusing. I of course changed it to the correct term. As I recall (this was a while back) I checked it out first to be sure they really were "girlie mags" and verified that they were (I don't recall which ones, off the top of my head, though I think Flame was probably one of them).
In any event, the particular names are not terribly important, IMO, and wouldn't mean a thing to most readers -- whereas using the term "girlie mags" actually imparts a tiny bit of info that would otherwise go missing. That's what I meant by adding a bit of "color" -- I'm afraid you misconstrued what I meant by that. I don't see anything in the least derogatory about the fact that he wrote some pieces that were published in "girlie mags" -- and I cannot imagine that Ellison himself would either! In fact, I rather think he would be amazed at the suggestion. I mean, it's not as if he wasn't perfectly aware of what sort of publications they were.
Oh, jeezus! I've heard him on the radio so many times (years ago) that I can hear him (in my head) laughing his ass off about this discussion, in his uniquely Ellisonian way. :) Really, I am sure he would be quite amused!
Okay, on a more serious note! If you're concerned that younger readers may not be familiar with the term, I'm sure that can be remedied with either an explanatory footnote or an external link (or both). I really don't see that as an issue.
At this point, I honestly think I've addressed your concerns. So, unless you've got something else...
Regards, Cgingold 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly I'm sure that Mr. Ellison would laugh at the discussion, and may even have used the term himself. The term is archaic, and as you say, does add color. If this weren't a biography of a living person, I'd agree with you. The problem is, as I said previously, BLP's have a higher standard to meet. It isn'important whether you or I view the term as favorable or not favorable, but how it might be viewed as derogatory and possibly slander by others. You are right that the names of the magazines might not be recognizable, but that's what should go there. By saying "Ellison wrote a number of erotica stories... which were later reprinted in Los Angeles-based girlie mags." is a characterization. You admit it is to add "color". Where saying "Ellison wrote a number of erotica stories... which were later reprinted in Los Angeles-based Bachelor and Carnival magazines." The first can be (and will be) intepreted by some as suggesting something derogatory. The second is factual. (well, if it had the right magazines there).

Why the hypersensitivity? Well, nothing specific to Mr. Ellison, or course. Although the article points out that he is litigous, and settled with AOL on a large sum of money just a few years ago aregarding his work reproduced on the Internet. Wikipedia has an offical policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically to avoid problems, and to remain ethical and not take a chance at slandering people. Wikipedia takes it very seriously. Read the policy to see what I mean, it is too large to reproduce here. But, take for example "

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.

In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.

As I participate in the Wikipedia:Living People Patrol, I take a conservative approach, as you have seen here. If it could be views as derogatory, if information is unsourced, it should be removed immediately. Atom 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City on the Edge of Forever

For some reason, this article lacks any mention of what is considered the most widely known Ellison controversy - his fued with Gene Roddenberry over the treatment of his Star Trek script. A full book has been published on the topic. I have added a short section about this, but it could certainly stand to be expanded. For example, my understanding is the unfilmed version of the script won a Writer's Guild award, while the filmed version received the Hugo. That has to be notable. But I need to do more research to get sources for that. 23skidoo 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You might want to mention that Ellison discovered, in the course of writing his "City" book, that it was actually D. C. Fontana who wrote the final version of TCOTEOF. Sir Rhosis 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I need to reread the book. I found my copy (and snagged the "fatally inept" quote from the jacket) but it's been years since I read the complete essay. 23skidoo 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw Ellison at WorldCon in Chicago address a large general audience on his Star Trek episode. After lambasting the innocent who had cried out "Your show's on tonight Harlan!" into a puddle of shivering jelly, the wacky genius disowned it, explaining that "the most important part" of the story (concerning drug addiction) had been purged entirely. After that he attempted to further disillusion the disappointed throng with other mundane self-disclosures, apparently in an effort to "wise up" the adoring fans. Part of this was a rant, apropos of nothing that I recall, about how wonderful it was to be a millionaire, and "eat steak" every day. (This was in the early years of the Republican rollback of the welfare state, so we listened dumbly but politely without understanding whose envangel he was preaching.) The only part that seemed on topic to me was his dislike of Star Wars. I guess his general message was that most fans were idiots, in his humble (ahem) opinion. But it was his tawdry taunting demeanor and directionless rage that disappointed most of all.Vendrov 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreams with Sharp Teeth

I added a blurb about Erik Nelson's Harlan Ellison documentary. I don't know how to add the references, but Harlan himself was heard describing the film in an interview on Cleveland's WCPL IdeaStream on 9/21, on their show "Around Noon". Also, the April 19th 2007 screening of the film is referenced here: http://www.documentaryfilms.net/index.php/dreams-with-sharp-teeth/

I apologize for my lack of completeness in this addition, but I have not the skill or time to finish it right now. Suitmonster 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I have since completed the above reference. Suitmonster (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categories

The categories Category:Science fiction short story collections by Harlan Ellison and Category:Fantasy short story collections by Harlan Ellison only had a few items in them so I moved them to more general Category:Short story collections by Harlan Ellison (which is in no danger of overpopulation as he appears to be putting out less than a book a decade these days.) If anyone objects then please discuss here. Otherwise I plan on taking the two categories to CfD in a couple of weeks. Sbacle 18:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A character representing 'Harlan' in popular fiction

In the recent SF movie 'War of the Worlds' there's a character, who speaks as if he may be a writer of some kind, who's named 'Harlan'. I think there's a strong possibility this character is based at least in part on Harlan Ellison.

Magicsinglez (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Personal defense training

As I recall (don't have a cite for this handy), Isaac Asimov says in one or two places that Ellison is quite competent at martial arts/hand-to-hand/personal defense/however you want to say this. Any sources on this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Civil Rights

Is there a reason that "Civil Rights" is under the controversy section? If not, I'd like to merge the content into the biography section. --24.191.102.63 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)