Talk:Terry Goodkind/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hypnotist? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Formula One

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Regarding Mystar's Edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Minor Quibble

message: 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)
thread_title: Fantasy author versus novelist?

message: 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)
thread_title: More edits by mystar

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

message: 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)
thread_title: Official mediation

message: 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)
thread_title: My Beefs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WLU replies to comments

message: 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)
replies: text: That's good enough for me but having a link to the sale, a independant site/gallery/etc or anything else along those lines will go a long way. I'm not inclined to believe that there is an elborate hoax set up to decieve people into thinking his is a commissioned artist when he is not. Without a thiry party reference though the wording should read "Terry Goodkind has claimed" or words to that effect. Still, I see no problem including it in the article. NeoFreak 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work 

message: There was a section on symbolism that has not been touched since 2005.  Archived.
198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off I think all this should go to the SoT pages and not the TG page. Secondly there is no doubt that the books are infused with Objectivist symbolism and TG has stated as much in interviews and online chat (has he not?) plus it's just in your face obvious. Just make sure it get sourced and it shouldn't be a problem to include it as it is relevant to the subject. NeoFreak 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: Some individuals discussed previous careers, such as hypnotist and formula one driver.  
Mystar was going to provide proof and references to this, which will add to the page if they are available.
198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous careers 

message: Terry Goodkind puts a lot of objectivist philosophy in his books. Some find it preachy. Goodkind's response on an on-line chat was:
Goodkind explained to those present who had criticized his writing style with such harsh criticism of the base philosophy and the moral and ethical values contained within the series, saying that they were not fans, and that they hated that his novels existed. He also claimed "their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good... These people hate what is good because it is good." We have seen the full effect and thuth of this fact by the attacks against the values with in the series, against the moral and ethicial set the characters uphold.
Mystar contested this, there was some back and forth, the debate is ongoing and as of August 28th, 2006, was reflected in the article itself below. Stuff from June and before was archived. 198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Views! 

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

message: A long dialogue between these two posters.  Archived.
198.96.2.93 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alienus and Mystar 

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

message: THis section was not changed since July, so I moved it into the archive.
WLU 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

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

message: Took out an initial section that discussed why TG could be categorized as a fantasy author.  Archived.  Left in some other bits of continuing comment.
64.230.1.241 04:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy Author or Novelist?

message: Mystar, aka IP 68.188.220.8, the recent edits made to the Terry Goodkind article were not vandalism. You can't revert them just because you didn't like the fact that the editor changed what you had initially written. In fact, reverting the edits in such a way IS considered vandalism.
Look Mystar, I still firmly believe that you want to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community, but it is obvious by your edit history that you just don't know how to go about doing so. I've looked at your contributions - and roughly 90% or more of them involve edits to Terry Goodkind and this talk page. If you're ever going to learn Wikipedia protocol and etiquette, I urge you to branch out. Look at other articles. Read help pages. Contribute and be involved in more than one topic. For starters, I'd suggest looking at some of these pages:
	•	Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset - A simple rule book for new editors
	•	Wikipedia:Vandalism - Defines what is and what is not vandalism
	•	Help:Reverting - Lets you know when to use the revert function
	•	Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot - Tips on how to discuss issues on talk pages
	•	Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - PLEASE read this help page. It is very pertinent to you.
In addition, you may want to look at some articles on authors that have reached featured article status. Although Terry Goodkind is unique, looking at some of these articles may help you understand the direction in which we want to move for the article on Goodkind. Examples: Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Douglas Adams, to name a few.
I hope you actually do take the time to look into some (or all) of the pages I have pointed out to you. They may help you become less possessive of this particular page on Goodkind, and I'm sure expanding your horizons will help you become a better Wikipedian.
Sincerely, Runch 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Edits by Mystar

message: The edit warring on this page really has gotten to the point where it needs to be dealt with. I'd like to draw everyone's attention to: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Steps one and two (discussion and trying to "wait out the war") have proved ineffective, so at this point I'm going to make a request for informal mediation. If that proves ineffective in stopping the problems, I'm going to make a request for a formal mediation session. Should both of those steps prove ineffective, I will request arbitration, although I hope it need not come to that.
Regardless of the way, I hope to finally put an end to this conflict. - Runch 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I made some additions to the article, I think they really help out with the lingering NPOV issues. Anyway, we'll see if the edits stand up to the test of time.
What I need help with is the references. For some reasons, they are appearing with the wrong numbers and some are appearing twice in the References section at the bottom of the article. I can't figure out what's wrong with them, maybe someone else can see what I did wrong? (The weirdest part is that they look perfectly fine in the preview, but in the actual save they go crazy. Go figure...) - Runch 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

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

message: Mystar, I repeat NeoFreak's question: Since informal moderation will most certainly not bring an end to this conflict, are you willing to take part in an offical mediation session? The decision is yours, but if you refuse to take part in an official mediation (as is your right), then I will make a request for arbitration. The arbitration is decided by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and their decision is final. This could include, but is not limited to, making changes to the article that neither of us wants, or having one or more Wikipedia editors banned from editing for an unspecified period of time.
I will expect your reply within 48 hours, and I will make no changed to the TG article until then. If I do not hear back from you, I will assume you are unwilling to participate, and I will request arbitration. - Runch 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Moderation

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

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

message: We can always make a list here of suggested changes that can be implemented after we end the edit stop, if there should be consensus (by which I also mean mystar and Omnilord) about them. I would suggest that people add their suggested changes here instead of in the article itself, but it seems the only people changing the article now are anons or users not involved in the talk page, so it seems unlikely that they'd read this. Oh well.
So far I see two proposed changes: firstly, under "Influence", the sentence "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" is incorrect, so it is suggested to put "had achieved" instead. Secondly, anon sees POV in the same sentence, and wants to remove the words "feat" and "achieve", to be replaced by something like "a first for the author". Paul Willocx 10:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A minor, non-controversial edit:  Add the link Legends (book) to the anthology Legends. - Runch 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that is appropriate. Unless you can cite references such as reviews or other authors or people in the industry and the such that make cited notation of similarities it is conjecture and WP:OR. The fantasy genre is full of a lot cliches so any parallels between authors is pretty unavoidable and including it here , unsourced, comes off looking like an attack. NeoFreak 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Neo, and add that it's just asking for trouble.  Even if you can find the references that aren't blogs, I think it's a bad idea to throw in without extensive discussion.  Welcome to our dysfunctional little talk page, Nacho.  Check out the archive and some of the more recent discussions for a taste of the issues dealt with on this page.
WLU 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since we have the edit stop, a list of proposed changes 

message: In all this discussion, it's hard to try and decipher what other people are thinking. Therefore, I'd like to post how I think we should deal with the mixture of facts and opinions that will undoubtedly comprise the "final draft" so to speak of the article.
Part 1 - Facts: All pertinent facts should be included. For example, the Biography section should be nothing but facts. (ie. Goodkind has worked as a carpenter, a violinmaker, and a restorer of rare and exotic artifacts and antiques). Mostly facts are data. However, let me point out that some quotations can be facts as well. If Mr. Goodkind makes the statement "I am an Objectivist", then that is a fact - he, after all, would be the ultimate authority on the matter of his own beliefs.
Sounds fine to me, as long as it is just facts, see huge post below, "My beefs"
Part 2 - Opinions: Opinions are a crucial part of critical commentary, whether they are Mr. Goodkind's opinions or anyone else's. For example, let's say we have the quote by Goodkind stating that his novels have "irrevocably changed the face of fantasy". This is an opinion, but it is important to the article. A critical commentary would then play out like this (just an example mind you):
	•	Mr. Goodkind stated that his novels have "irrevocably changed the face of fantasy"
	•	Joe Reviewer 1 also believes that his novels have changed the face of fantasy
	•	Joe Reviewer cites the heavy focus on philosophy and Objectivism as his reasons
	•	Bill Reviewer 2 agrees with Joe Reviewer, but for different reasons
	•	Bill Reviewer cites hordes of fans saying that the series is "wicked sweet"
	•	John Reviewer 3 disagrees with the statement
	•	John Reviewer 3 cites similarities to other fantasy novels, and previous novels with objectivist ties
And that would be all we'd include. There wouldn't be any conclusions (so this would be different from your typical high school English essay), because conclusions would merely be our (the editors) opinions and would also fall under the category of original research.
Anyway, that's how I was hoping to proceed with the article. Comments? Questions? - Runch 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts vs. Opinions

message: Anyone wants the longer version, it's archived.
1)  TG is best known as a novelist, the link that stated he was best known as a realistic painter does not actually say this.
2)  All novels have been bestsellers is currently a work in progress
3)  not super relevant
4)  Phantom is a best seller - needs a references other than a weblog
5)  TG's books are fantasy, in my opinion and I'm backed up by amazon, but there is debate
6)  As 5 pretty much
7)  As 5 again
8)  As 5
9)  There's a quote about him writing to inspire
2) Yeah, we do actually. But there's an edit stop. 4) Phantom did make #1, and if that isn't a criterium for being a bestseller, what is? 6) I don't know, I read the Lynn Flewelling interview with him, and I thought he put it in a much better and less offensive way there. 8) Yeah, don't think we'd be doing Mr Goodkind a service by leaving it there.
Paul Willocx 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Beefs (shortened)

message: okay, since people insist on editing, I think we should go ahead with agreeable grammar, spelling, and very basic edits that have been proposed so far, and just create a list of reversion points here for moderation to review.
No new information should be added and nothing should be removed until moderation however.
*[] - the preserved revision at time of stopped editing.
:I've already said this a half dozen times in a half dozen places. The edit stop was requested by me and I am not an admin. This is not an enforceable stop and if other editors wish to be rude about then you can't revert their edits on these grounds alone. On a side note though I thought the anon's last edit was good as the "rather extreme" comment was out of line and POV. NeoFreak 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Neofreak about edits in general - we need not revert everything, only significant changes that involve article themes and POV statements.  And I also though the removal of the "rather extreme" comment was justified, it is POV (and I'm the one who put that in in the first place!  But I've seen the error of my ways, so to speak, since then, so I'd like to retract that edit if possible.) - Runch 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well on another note your edits to the SoT page are looking really good.NeoFreak 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it certainly is, but there might have been parts in what you cut that didn't have to go. Guess we can carefully restart from how it is now, though... Paul Willocx 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOR MODERATION REVIEW 

message: Took out this section and archived it.
WLU 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WLU replies to comments

message: Following is  all the info for the box. The recent pic has been ok'd by Goodkind, and as I own the photo, I give my permssion. I've tried to figure it out, and well... I'm just not that script or code savvy.
:The box looks nice. Thanks for allowing the use of your image; if you want it to appear in the article, you'll need to upload it to Wikipedia.  I've never uploaded images myself, so I don't know too much about it, but there's a guide to the process here. Brendan Moody 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded and added the picture. It *may* get deleted if someone gets overly zealotic about it, because I wasn't sure about the GFDL. Short summary: GFDL means that not only does the owner allow the picture to be on Wikipedia, but he also allows anyone else to take the image and use it, even for commercial purposes (though, as I understand it, credit to the original maker is still obligatory). I now uploaded it as a picture which has been permitted by its owner to appear on Wikipedia, and given the link to this talk page, I hope that will be sufficient. Paul Willocx 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: addition of an info writer box

message: I created a wikiquotes page for Terry Goodkind, there's a couple there now that I found on his website and the Flemming interview, here's the link.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Terry_goodkind
I prefered the earlier image that was on the webpage, the new one is pretty small.  
WLU 22:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image is fine. Just my two cents. NeoFreak 04:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reason for either of you to get short with each other. Mystar likes the pic and WLU doesn't. WLU, if you want to propose the use of another picture by all means do so. Mystar, I didn't know that was his wife, now knowing that I like it even more but I suggest you add that fact to the caption. NeoFreak 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquotes page

message: I'm not sure the section about the Sword of Truth mini series is particularly relevant to the article.  I think it makes more sense having it on the article for the Sword of Truth, where it has been since the information was released.  What does everyone else think? - Runch 14:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mystar was right in removing the Wikiquote link.  It's a perfectly good link, but it's already present in the article once, in the Published Works section.  There's no need to include it twice, it's unnecessary.  If you'd rather have it at the bottom of the article, feel free to move it to the bottom of the page, though. - Runch 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the figures either include his foreign sales or they don't. If the source is not clear on the issue it's really not much of a source. Any ideas? As for the mini-series I thought that they were making a movie as well. That should really be included in the Sword of Truth article with a blurb on TG's participation and sale of the rights on this article linking to the Sword of Truth main section. Once there is some more concrete, citable info on the movie it defiantly rates its own article. NeoFreak 23:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miniseries

message: Since the publication numbers are wrapping up, I'm starting in on changing his bio - it now reflects the careers listed on the reference, a painter as one career among many rather than what he's best known for.  WLU 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painter 

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Sword of Truth is now up and running, although there will undoubtedly be many changes, updates, and revisons over the next few weeks.  Please join if you are interested! You can use the shortcut WP:SoT for easy access. - Runch 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sword of Truth]]

message: Just because you do not like information on the page it is not your place to wholesale remove it. You have already established your disdane of all things Goodkind. The material is valid and speaks to the content of the book and is valuable information for the reader. If you wish to reword, add or edit. Then do so. BUT wholesale removal is considered vandalism. We are working on these pages through the wiki project, so if you please allow us to continue to do so.--Mystar 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "it should have content about the author, not his works" <-- I do not understand this concept. User:WLU, can you expand on this? --JWSchmidt 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As WLU is currently banned from editing this article, I'll explain.  The article is about Terry Goodkind, the author.  It should contain information about his life, who he is, and what motivates him to be an author, not the information about his books.  While it is feasable to include information on why he chose to write fantasy, and why what he writes in the fantasy genre is so controversial because of his viewpoints, going into the details of the sword of truth series itself (talking about the characters and the plot of the books) belongs in the articles dedicated to those specific topics.  It is a means of organizing the information into smaller, speciallized chunks that are easier to assimilate on the whole. Omnilord 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The concept is this, he writes novels with fantasy elements, not fantasy novels.  The elements of his books that are fantasy are included mechanically, not incidentally, to serve a purpose.  It is a small difference, but it is a difference non-the-less.  Omnilord 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WLU's wholesale deleation of mass information

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

message: Are the participants here still interested in informal mediation?  The request is here.  I have closed the request but can reopen it if you desire.  --Ideogram 07:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am and do, yes. I'm sure most the others are as well but it might need to be reopened with a revisted participant list. I am occupied with professional obligations until the start of next month so I'm not sure I can take part until then. NeoFreak 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not interested in formal mediation on this page, it seems to have settled on an acceptable version.  WLU
I do not see the need for mediation at all. WLU has admitted to not reading Goodkind, being untrustworthy, and that (in her own words) we should not trust her in the future, and even having not read Goodkind, dislikes him. What a way to allow people to make up your mind for you eh!
Seriously, We have a Wikipedia project on the situation now and I think this will prove to be a powerful union that will build consensus on the proper content eliminating POV and unnecessary negative content. I vote no
--Mystar 20:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Latest addition to the themes section:
"The series is clearly intended for adult readers, with frequent acts of sado-masochism, rape and torture described in extreme detail in the books."
I've been meaning to get around to adding this, or something similar to the SoT page proper rather than the bio page (as pointed out by Omnilord, issues regarding the series should be placed on that page, not on the bio page).  
What do others think of replacing that line with:
"For a discussion of the critical reception of the Sword of Truth series, see the Sword of Truth main page."
With the section added (the section being the one included above).
Thoughts?  WLU 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes addition