Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Quote:Karen Traviss

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, but see Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Quote:Karen Traviss/Renomination. - Sikon [Talk] 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page to vote because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that your vote may be subject to deletion. Recruiting votes in this manner is considered vote farming, and it is against Wookieepedia policy.

While you can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here even if you are new, there are certain requirements that must be met in order to actually cast a vote. Specifically, you must have made at least 50 main namespace (article) edits in the six months prior to the start of the vote. This requirement has been in place since 2014. Please see Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy for more information.

Site-wide policy and procedure is determined by our Consensus policy, so please take a look at it if you have not already.

Please sign your posts by using ~~~~ at the end of your posts. May the Force be with you!

Quote:Karen Traviss

Nominated. Can a page with nothing but quotes still not be from a NPOV? You decide. -- Ozzel 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep and expand. -- Darth Culator 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep and expand. Lowkey 03:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep and expand. Ibimus 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (user's only edits are to this page and userpage)
  4. Kuralyov 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Strong keep and expand Kuralyov 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep and alter to quotes that fit as long as we have quotes from the master of upsetting people, George Lucas. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep and expand. If the problem is that it's just the one author, then we should start quote pages for other SW people. We should do that anyway, really. - Lord Hydronium 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep and expand. -- Vermilion 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Hesitant Keep DesertFly 06:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep, but improve format and remove all quotes not relevant to SW. KEJ 06:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep, with possible content change as stated by KEJ. See below for more info. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep and expand. Snoop 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep and expand. And give the same opportunity for a quote article for other officials. VT-16 09:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Keep. Although the way quotes are selected can be one-sided, there is nothing wrong with presenting a person's actual quotes, even if they are negative. If you think there are some KT quotes out there that are better, then by all means add them in. While we're on this subject, I think an explanation of this quotes page on the main KT article which links here, going over her fued with the "Talifans" would be appropriate. It would give better context, and like it or not the issue is real and has spread throughout the SW fandom. JimRaynor55 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Keep because there is nothing wrong with the article. - TopAce 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Keep, but with respect, not the trash that was on there before. WhiteBoy 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Agreeing with Aziz...back to delete. WhiteBoy 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Keep it, but just make sure it's neutral and not derogatory. It's hard enough for something like Wookieepedia to be taken seriously by anyone - even those involved in Star Wars. Using a page to discredit an author you don't like will only makes it harder and it's just plain rude. HavetStorm 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep, with edits. WhiteBoy and HavetStorm talk sense. --Dark Spork 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Screw this. I want nothing to do with this clusterkriff until we have some kind of idea as to what the hell we're actually voting for. Dark Spork 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep, expand and organize.Bonko 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Keep, expand and clean up. If people want to gripe that this is one of the only quote articles then why not add more. I'm sure Tim Zahn, Aaron Allstone and others have some good quotes that we could make pages for. There no reason to take away the "bad" quotes either, if she said them, and they are considered noteworthy, they stay.--Jerry 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep. I guess by voting this way I'm breaking ranks with the vast horde of censorship-crazed Traviss fans. (this was deliberaley ironic)-LtNOWIS 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep, of course. There's nothing wrong with having a quotes page per se, only that someone was trying to prove a point by including only quotes supporting it. - Sikon [Talk] 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Keep. I heartily encourage the addition of positive Traviss quotes, however. But their continued absence seems to indicate that none may exist... in which case, the page is accurately reflecting the issue as-is. -- SM-716 [[File:716chiss.gif]] talk? 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Keep, subject to WhiteBoy's edits keeping the quotes relevant and in context. (There's still one in there which I'm not sure belongs.) I have no problem with some form of long-term protection of the page if necessary to keep it from being a flame magnet. If it is kept and protected from editing, I urge whichever users have the ability to edit it not to try and add irrelevant and out-of-context quotes to push a particular agenda. If it is deleted (which may turn out in the end to be best for the group: this is only a weak keep vote), this should not mean automatic deletion for Quote:Timothy Zahn, Quote:Chris Avellone, Quote:George Lucas, etc., but rather an object lesson in why such pages must be kept on topic and non-infammatory. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Weak keep on one condition: Since we have other quote pages from real-life people, this should be kept as long as good quotes that do not cause conflicts can be found and added in. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Ozzel 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. AdamwankenobiTalk to me! My home. 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Vehement delete, per Azizlight and other comments. RMF 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. I didn't really want quote pages to begin with. Cutch 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dark Spork 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. If we can't have a respectable page, we shouldn't have one at all. WhiteBoy 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. This is turning into the Second Great Edit War. Admins are threatening each other with bans and censorship charges. Be gone with this thing. -- SFH 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. look, this is causing a war. a pointless one, just delete it, your upsetting the subject as well, surely thats a sign that weve gone to far Jedi Dude 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Delete this crap. Where is our unity. We don't need a war. I am on a wiki that had a war. It was horrible. This thing is becoming the thing that we don't need. -H*bad
  10. EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE. This is seriously causing so much more trouble than it's worth. The page seems to have been created for the purpose of highlighting the "bad" quotes. They are out of context, making the page very unencyclopedic and subjective. Providing links to the pages where the quotes were taken from does not change that fact. The article is NOT neutral by any stretch of the imagination - "good quotes" mixed with "bad quotes" don't suddenly cancel each other out to make for a neutral article. Nobody's going to think any less of us if we remove this page. Wookieepedia has nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping this page. We don't need author quotes! We're all here for one reason - because we love Star Wars, no? As an administrator, pleeease, I beg you all, just let it go. It's what is best for Wookieepedia. Whether you like KT or not should not be reflected on this site. Wookieepedia MUST be seen as neutral. It's a shame that all the great hard work over the past year can be tainted by one stupid useless page. Let's not let that happen. Let's rise above this and make Wookieepedia the best site it can be. Get rid of this page. WE DON'T NEED IT! --Azizlight 17:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC) "Don't give in to hate - that leads to the Dark Side." -- Spirit of Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker.
  11. If this is going to cause a civil war within Wookieepedia, we should delete it right away. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Delete. It's more trouble than it's worth. Nebulax is right; this is getting ridiculous. But maybe we can still compromise. Here's how. Start a Fandom Controversies article where we can rationally and neutrally explain the source of consternation, while also including past arguments (i.e. SSD length, Saxton, etc.) so that we don't overemphasize this issue above all others. It's VERY important to realize that the problem here isn't necessarily that the page (indirectly) criticizes Ms. Traviss. It's that it's dishonest. For example - example only - re-read DM's blog. Does he ever say he has a problem with calmly and rationally disagreeing with, say, the 3 million number? Nope. He takes issue with the fact the manner in which the number is attacked - indirectly, sneakily, through questionably-manipulated (again, through selectivity) quotes. I wholeheartedly agree, and I think a lot of other people who are generally against this page think so too. It's just that DM is the one who wrote a huge long blog on it. :) Anyway - disagreement is ok. Bias, unnecesary cruelty, and personal agendas are not. So why can't we calmly talk about that encyclopedicly - "Some people feel the number is too small," etc. I know that in the past such additions to the article have been deleted, but I think that we should all be able to agree that, in order to end an edit war, some amount of compromise is OK. With that out of the way, I don't see much of a reason to keep this quotes page aside from to be cruel. No one else has a quotes page, and I now think it's best that way. Maybe put together a quick page for someone if they have funny, enjoyable, thoroughly non-controversial quotes suitable for the Quote of the Day. But Wookieepedia shouldn't turn into a place for commentary on who likes which authors and why. That should be, at most, a footnote, or at least contained in a single straighforward honest neutral (and aforementioned) Controversies page. So... whaddya say? GeneralTarfful 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC) EDIT: I'm no longer even sure the "Controversies" page is a good idea. I don't know. I just have no clue. Ms. Traviss herself at one point deleted some of the stuff on her page, only to have it reverted back almost immediately. Shouldn't we be a bit more kind and cordial to the authors who work to bring us books and stories and, in general, entertainment? GeneralTarfful 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong delete. Seriously guys, the slant is disgustingly obvious for a supposably neutral encyclopaedia. Rhysode 05:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Delete. Not worth it at all. --Eyrezer 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Delete. I don't think we should have quotes pages for RL people, period. Yrfeloran 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Delete. Even more useless than the George Lucas one. CooperTFN 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Delete. Pointless. Redemption 03:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Delete. Very pointless. --Xwing328(Talk) 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Delete. This kind of behavior is embarassing to the entire SW community. Personal quotes have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia about the SW universe. It detracts from the neutrality and even validity of the entire collection. The various "controversies" in Star Wars just aren't important to the casual to average fan; they really have no place in a reference document. If you really feel compelled to keep track of "controversies" the place is your own web page or site, not here. Nokeoi 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (user's only edits are to this page and userpage)
  20. Delete. Kill it. It is an embarrassment to this encyclopedia. All of the quotes are about the author and not about Star Wars. As such, the page is nothing more than an open invitation for disgruntled fans to vent their angst. We have nothing to lose and much to gain by deleting this polemic page.–Sentry [Talk] 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. DELETE This is ridiculous. It wouldn't be carried in any respectable encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be here. The fact is this entire thing is a pet project of a few folks with a personal beef. Instead of using a reasonable, well thought out arguement, they are hiding behind user names and acting like rabble rousing gutter snipes. Kill it now before it renders the wiki irrelevent.Ghost in the Machine 02:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (User's only edits are this page and Verpine shatter gun)

Neutral/comments

  • I personally think that this is embarrassing. I know it is just quotes, and I don't doubt the authenticity of them, but it's blatantly obvious that there is an agenda behind the creation of the page. We're an encyclopedia, folks. If somebody wants to make these quotes available to the public, then put them on your own website. But I think the page adds nothing positive to Wookieepedia and does nothing but make us look bad, and I say we should be rid of it. -- Ozzel 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Continued responsible editors and periodic admin review to remove any uncited quotes would result in the quotes being in context, as they are now. Remember the old adage about "mind your words... they become your character"? That comes into play here. If you don't want people to have statements from you that show you acting in a negative light, don't say such things in the first place. -- Lowkey

I'd only vote keep if we restrict it to quotes which she personally said, which she made about her work, and which are still part of the public record (i.e. message board posts, quotes from printed media, and blog posts which haven't been taken down from public view.) If she doesn't like wikis, Tony Blair, smoked salmon, technically-minded fans, being flamed, the new X-Men movie, or me, personally: who the hell cares? The more we allow in, the more it's going to be end up a magnet for flames and counter-flames. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Lowkey, what she says in irrelevant. We don't have to post it. This vote is not about whether or not Ms. Traviss should be careful of what she says; it is a vote of whether or not we should post it on this wiki. -- Ozzel 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, selection, context (or a lack of context), and presentation can be as POV as anything else. We can't get away with ignoring context and expecting readers to hunt down every link to ascertain the author's true intent; that's just silly. In any event, I don't see how articles of this type are conducive to our goal of compiling a neutral, exhaustive (in terms of IU) encyclopedia. Now, before I'm accused of caving in at the first sign of heat, [1] I'd like to point out that criticism is often beneficial, as it is in this case. External perspectives can be as valuable as internal ones, and sometimes more so. RMF 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Somehow, if we made a Quotes page about say, Timothy Zahn, Troy Denning, Aaron Allston, or even George Lucas, I doubt it would get this kind of reaction. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. In fact, in light of the header quotes bit on the front page, I would suggest we start doing that, if only to provide a repository of possible bits. Would that not go far towards meeting the NPOV bit, as it would be done across the board instead of for one specific author? Lowkey 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Oddly enough, none of those authors have openly wished death upon any segment of their franchise's fanbase. At least not that I've been able to find. If they have, we should quote them too. -- Darth Culator 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • As she has removed that entry from public view, and it was a clear case of hyperbole in the first place, I'm not sure that's relevant. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • So Culator, you are saying that we should have quote pages just to make people look bad? -- Ozzel 03:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • No, we should have quote pages to record interesting things they say. That's all this page does. We should probably have a variety of quotes from those authors too. -- Darth Culator 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
              • The fact that these make her look bad is more a result of the fact that she hasn't said much that makes her look good. I mean, if we did a page on Able, it would pretty much be nothing but jokes. Because that's what he does. He'll answer question, and then sit back and crack wise. You you decry that page as an attempt to make him look like he doesn't take anything serious? Meanwhile, the bulk of Ms Traviss' interactions with the fanbase have been negative. So the bulk of quotes are negative. If people want to add positive quotes there is nothing stopping them... except for the fact that there aren't really any out there. Which goes back to my above point. Lowkey 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever one thinks of the person(s) in question, Wookieepedia is not the place for any one segment of fandom to advance their agenda regarding another. It only cheapens the site as whole. If we are going to preach nuetrality, we need to practice it as well. -- Dark Spork 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Its really hard to get more neutral then direct quotes and citations. In fact, really it would be the opposite of neutrality, it would be working to give someone a more positive appearance then they have by covering their tracks for them. Lowkey 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Traviss's fans have spread their little brand of censorship and fan-worship to just about every major fansite on the web. By posting this we are doing our part to maintain overall neutrality. Let's be honest, if this wasn't about Traviss buit rather about KJA or Hambly no one would care. It's only because so many people have been convinced that she's some sort of martyr. Kuralyov 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • By quoting everything a person says, its call truth. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if the above were true, we are not quoting everything a person is saying. WhiteBoy 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Silly Dan, RMF, Ozzel, and Dark Spork here. It's obvious from the comments, just as StarNeptune pointed out, there's a bit of an agenda at work here. And Wookieepedia's not the place for that; we'll leave that to Poe. WhiteBoy 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the fact that Ms Traviss _removed_ some of the quotes figures into this at all. Obviously, she doesn't want anyone to read them now that they're in wider circulation, but frankly, that's too damn bad. It screams Orwell. As for "makes us look bad"-erm- makes us look bad to who, exactly? Her? Well, really, so what? She's well within her rights to complain and pontificate about it. Heck, quote her. That only improves the page. 58.168.56.179 06:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As much as I don't want to get into this debate, this seems like a valid article, since Ms. Traviss is directly connected to Star Wars. On that note, I think it may be very well worth the effort to create similar articles for other authors and figures connected to Star Wars, though I think it best if the quotes listed are ones that can be linked somehow to Star Wars. This is a Star Wars encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia about things that people who worked on Star Wars have also done. Bah humbug, forgot to sign. DesertFly 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Karen Traviss as well as a scant few of her fans have tried to intimidate and harass critics of her works, regardless if their SW related or not. In the recent few days, she's also been removing some of her more "questionable" statements from the net. I think articles like these should be kept to get a more complete look at anyone affiliated with LFL. VT-16 09:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's got nothing to do with SW, it's not relevant. KEJ 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It is relevant because it involves an LFL employee. There's plenty of OOU articles on this site that have little to do with in-universe SW subjects, in the real-life or culture sections. Having quotes from people affilitated with LFL and SW would be part of that, as well as shedding some light on the ongoing debate which made an impact on the SW fanbase. VT-16 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I really don't think her views on the nanny state or that she studies greek or whatever is of any relevance whatsoever to this project. So just because someone is an LFL employee, we have to include every aspect of their life? Like what they have for breakfast, their favortie color, their sexual preferences, their political stances? That's where it's gonna end if we open up for this. KEJ 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I was talking about her star wars-related ones. Agreed, the rest would have to go. VT-16 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Role of an Encyclopedia

People keep bringing up that this is not what an encyclopedia is for. But as a counter to that I have to ask, has anyone heard of anything on this scale going down before? This fight has been going on for coming up on a year now, and it doesn't look like it is going to slow down anytime soon (look at the response to someone modifying the Firefly theme). Its an unprecedentedly massive schism between the authors and the fans. The exact job of an encyclopedia is to preserve things like that - hence why you have entries in them about Clinton's impeachment, or a civil war, or the protestent reformation, or the Vatican II Council. Now the issue is, how to do it in a NPOV. The best way I can think of is direct quotes. A direct quote with a link showing it in full context is about as neutral as it gets. Its the best solution we have to this - encyclopedias are suppossed to cover these kinds of events, yet this has to remain as fair as possible. Quotes do that. Getting rid of this, trying to whitewash history, is both a failing in the role of an encyclopedia, and in being neutral. -- Lowkey 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and we have to present the information as it was given. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Does anybody truly believe that this page was made by someone with a neutral point of view? -- Ozzel 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I was in the IRC chat when Culator suggested creating it. He only had "negative" quotes, and he asked another person in the chat to supply him with "positive" ones to balance them out. What you see now is the result. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I still fail to see how Wookieepedia is better off by having this page than by not having it. -- Ozzel 04:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Aren't we supposed to be the repository of all information? This of course coming from a inclusionist. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Linking to context after each quote is massively inadequate. 95% of the people who read the page are going to look at her quotes and move on, leaving themselves with a possibly mistaken impression because they missed a crucial bit of context. Of course, this is partly their fault for being too intellectually lazy to investigate the links, but it is also collectively ours for representing a quote without adequate background info – i.e. what it is in reference to, why it was said, whether there was sarcasm/hyperbole/etc intended, and so on. RMF 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea that this reflects poorly on us is unfounded. It is based on the same logic used by those who hurl insults at the NYT for revealing President Bush broke the law. "How dare you reveal waht someone else did!" -- 205.56.129.194 05:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, this is different. First of all, Ms. Traviss hasn't exactly broken the law; rather, this is just a matter of some fans' personal opinion. And the NYT wasn't using a page of supposedly-unbiased quotes to make their point. This is more like collecting Bushisms, with the critical different that it's not just done for the sake of a bit of innocent humor. GeneralTarfful 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The opinions of Ozzel are also suspect to me, since he's a mod at a website that has admitted to obeying the whims of LFL and any of its employees. This is obviously his attempt to export that censorship here. Kuralyov 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's not make this personal. I'm sure there are plenty here who have anti-Traviss sentiments that may have surfaced in the past; but let's just judge the article on its own merits. RMF 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Let me just say that aside from simply contributing occasionally to one section of their website, I have absolutely no say in the policies of TFN's site or their forums. I'll kindly ask that anything else about me personally be taken up on my talk page. -- Ozzel 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, what I've been meaning to say this whole time (and obviously should have earlier): I'm only discussing this because I think it reflects negatively on us. I have never read one of Karen Traviss' books or short stories. I have also never posted anywhere any sort of opinion regarding clone numbers (that I can recall), simply because I do not have strong feelings one way or the other regarding the issue. I am speaking purely as a Wookieepedian. I have no bias toward or against Ms. Traviss, and I can most certainly assure you that I am not being influenced by the policies of any other websites or groups. I'm just looking out for the wiki, because I think, in my humble opinion, that this quote page, in it's current incarnation, makes us look bad. -- Ozzel 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thirded. No need to get personal here guys, Ozzel is a fine contributer and has earned respect and I don't question his motives. Assume good faith QuentinGeorge 06:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But is removing something that is making us look bad really worth bowing to censorship, Ozzel? Certainly, Karren Traviss and her works are subjects of heated dispute, and if the page in question held only negative quotes (or positive ones, for that matter) I would be fully in favor of deletion. But, as it stands, whether or not it was created out of pure objectivity, it is a valid reference for people looking for quotes from a specific author; whether they reflect on her in a postive or negative light makes no difference, as long as they are both represented. -- Ibimus 05:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I echo Ozzel's thoughts here. I have little opinion about Traviss good or bad. I have read little of her works, and I'm looking at it from the perspective of what's best for the wiki. In my view, this so-called schism Lowkey talks about is itself POV. I feel no less connection to the authors than I did a year ago. I think this is getting blown a bit out of proportion. As I implied in my vote, I'm not against a quotes page in itself. I say we only include the quotes that are both interesting and specifically Star Wars-related. WhiteBoy 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Quentin just said what I was saying.  :) WhiteBoy 06:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Traviss is attempting to erase any "bad" comments from her past, that should be noted precisely on an encyclopedia like this, also because afaik this is the only major "schism" that's ever occured between a SW author and SW fans. Up until her reactions to the on-going debate, most people (on both sides of the 3 mill issue) liked her work, even praising it. VT-16 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's relevant to this discussion of the quotation page. I don't see the problem in an article on that schism, since it appears to be part of the fan community, if it can be kept neutral and sober and not have the shape of an attack on Traviss, but that's a topic to be discussed somewhere else. Perhaps in the Senate Hall. KEJ 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think quotes, good or bad, are relevant if they have an impact on SW fandom. By all means, post some positive and uplifting ones, no-one is stopping you. VT-16 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure, I was against the inclusion of irrelevant quotes on this page. As to the "schism" thing, I suggest that you, or somebody else with knowledge about it, write a neutral, objective, and enlightening SW-culture article on it. I'm sure it would be useful and informative if kept sober ans respectful to both sides. KEJ 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My Three Credits

  • Firstly, I think we can agree that simply having the article Quote:Karen Traviss is no more NPOV in principle than having a Quote:Chris Avellone or a Quote:George Lucas page. That being established, I think the article can be kept.
What does seem to be the issue here if I am reading this correctly, is the content of said article. In that case, I strongly think at least the article should be kept - the content is another issue to be thrashed out, depending on the veracity of the quotes. (I haven't checked, so I can't say so myself. QuentinGeorge 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I should note we also have pages on Lucas bashing and Fan criticism of George Lucas. QuentinGeorge 06:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What I see as the issue is typical Fandalorian attempts to make sure that if they can't bend a page to suit their views, then they'd rather delete it. I don't see how protraying the negative side of an issue became NPOV, especially when it is so much more prevalent than positive. People complain that this page shows how Traviss isn't a nice person? Surprise surprise, it's because she's not one. Kuralyov 06:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A lot of quotes on the page have nothing to do with Star Wars at all, and so they're totally irrelevant to this wiki (perhaps they were added with the intension of causing harm?). Get rid of those quotes! Take the issues of politics, personal relations, education etc. somewhere else. Go to her blogs and discuss that stuff with her there. It doesn't belong here. I'm sure Karen Traviss would agree with me. KEJ 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • While Karen Traviss' personal views on this matter are irrelevant to the point (unless some of the those quotes are libelous, which, to my knowledge none are), I must agree with KEJ. The article itself should be kept, but pruning out those statements that do not relate to Star Wars at all (namely, the "Nanny-state" one), should be an adequete compromise, I think. Ibimus 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've got no problems with that, as long as it's intended to be a consistent policy across the board. QuentinGeorge 08:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ibimus, well, what I meant was that I think that Travis would probably agree with me that most of the quotes are irrelevant. I don't know what she actually thinks, and I'm not pretending to know either, which is why I made sure to use the hedge "I'm sure" and the modal verb "would". Whether her actual opinions on this matter are relevant or not is not for me to decide... well, I guess that if she has opinions on this matter, they should be stated (by her of course), heard and taken into consideration. Anyway, what most of us seem to agree on is that all the irrelevant quotes should be removed. So, let's do that. KEJ 08:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. For ease in the future, here is the version before I edited it. WhiteBoy 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
              • So when it becomes clear you are going to lose the vote because most people want it to stay, you edit it so that it might as well have been deleted? My, what an interesting set of ethics you have. The page about the author exists to provide information about them. If disagreeing with the author is going to get me death threats, place me in revenge fantasies, and have my name turned into a fictional swear word, I want to know that before I interact with them, just as I would want to know that I should avoid a bridge at night because kids throw rocks off it at cars. That is exactly the sort of thing that should be here. This article doesn't reflect poorly on wookieepedia, but your actions here do. -- 205.56.129.194 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
                • 'you edit it so that it might as well have been deleted' – you make it sound like the whole point of the article is to smear her. Without the inflammatory quotes, the article becomes worthless? You hide behind your supposed neutrality, and then you cry foul when irrelevant (but inflammatory) quotes are removed? Listen, I have no objection to Traviss-bashing. If you want to do that on your personal webpage, on your personal blog/wiki/whatever, be my guest. What I do have a problem with is posting it here, under the guise of supposed neutrality when nothing could be further from the truth. If we want to cover Traviss-fan relations in a NPOV way, this is definitely not the way to go about it. Perhaps a section on her article, explaining the origin of the controversy, some of the contentious quotes, with all relevant background info and both sides depicted fairly? I think that any 'quote-only' environment is going to be prone to misinformation and false impressions. RMF 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Actually, the anon has a valid point.

KT: "Delete those quotes where I threatened to kill people"

Community: "No"

Whiteboy: "The people have spoken. *deletes quotes*"

This page was up for deletion for the sole reason that it had negative quotes. Had it said she was full of sunshine, butterflies, and kisses no one would have said word one. But the content had it up for deletion. And the community is leaning heavily that it should stay as is, and be expanded. So, looking at the results, the admin decides to ignore them and delete those parts anyways, so that while he follows the letter of the law, he ignores the spirit. With regards to the idea of a controversy section, I would support that. However, the problem is that attempts to include such information before have always been edited out, claiming that it wasn't neutral. As I said above, I regard this as the best way to warn people while still be neutral. -- Lowkey

  • "As I said above, I regard this as the best way to warn people while still be neutral". That's where your arguement falls to its knees. You want to "warn" people about KT. How is that Neutral? This is why there is a problem. Some people want to show the world that KT is bad. THAT'S NOT NEUTRAL!!! --Azizlight 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hiding what someone did is not neutral. Reporting it without voicing opinion over it is. By your logic, history books such as those in Japan that delete mentions of war crimes are neutral, instead of being biased for the side that committed them and wants cover them up. -- Lowkey
  • Sorry, anon and Lowkey, but you must have missed something there. Possibly it's hard to tell because of the flow of the discussion. What happened was that it seemed that we were reaching a compromise (to keep the page and, as KEJ pointed out, to take out the irrelevant quotes) so that's simply what I did. WhiteBoy 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it's far from a death threat. Faaaarrrr from it. Wikipedia on Gut Reactions. Especially note: "Gut feelings are generally regarded as unmodulated by conscious thought." It's a gut reaction; like, "Hey, that @%^#&@ guy cut me off, I wanna.... (insert nasty thing here)." But wait, there's more. It's not a random "I don't like you" Dr. Evazan-style (non-)threat; it's only in response to "folks who threaten to kill authors." (That's a direct quote.) So it's really just an unconscious self-defense gut reaction non-threat. Let's try not to blow this thing out of proportion. (Why do I get the feeling I'm not the first one here to say that?) GeneralTarfful 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • By her own admission she has not recieved any death threats. Yet she still made such comments on at least 3 seperate occassions. So her claims that it is only to those who where threateneing her are clearly false, as she was never threatened in the first place. -- Lowkey

WhiteBoy's brand of censorship

"My gut reaction is that they all need garotting."
―Karen Traviss in response to her detractors

I see he removed this from the article, and even tried banning me when I re-added it, accusing me of author-bashing. This is a completely legitimate quote to have in. How can it be bashing when it is exactly what she herself said? Oh wait, I get it: anything negative in this quote section is going to be bashing. So in effect, even when this vote passes, Whiteboy will just delete anythign negative posted in it and ban anyone who adds them back in.

I will continue to place this quote in until someone can tell me why it shouldn't be, with an argument that consists of more than it's unfair to Traviss. Kuralyov 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • And now I see that after conveniently deleting all the quotes he does not persoanlly approve of, he has blocked the page. But of course there's no conflict of interest. Kuralyov 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Needless to say, when I supported a compromise, this is not what I had in mind. I had expected a discussion on what quotes belong and which do not; not this. It is rather distressing that such a unilateral act can occur on a site that thrives on group discussion and contribution. Ibimus 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • One thing people seem to be overlooking is that the facts don't care about concepts like "neutrality" or "respect." Facts are facts. When people disagree with Karen Traviss, they become part of her violent revenge fantasies. This is a notable fact. -- Darth Culator 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to have this quote other than to incite the reader against the author. We are not some kind of grand crusading documentary that needs to capture all things Wookiee. It's like the difference between tabloid journalism and real journalism: you deal responsibly and with respect for the subject about whom you are writing. As I have said before I don't care about Traviss one way or the other, but you are getting out of hand with your insistence, Kuralyov, hence the 10-second ban. And I wonder how many times we'll hear the word "censor" (or a variant) before this is all over. WhiteBoy 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably as many times as someone commits the act. And you are getting out of hand with your apparent view that your opinions count for more than others. There is every reason for that quote to be there, as shown above, and you still have not provided a coherent reason why it should be taken out. Kuralyov 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If George Lucas said "I think some Star Wars fans should be punched in the face," would anyone say that wasn't notable? However, I don't believe the version Kuralyov was putting in is the right way to do it. The way it's written there really does sound like agenda pushing; rather, I think the paragraph in the original version, the one with full context, is the right way to go about it. - Lord Hydronium 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My god...this thing is turning into the Second Great Edit War. -- SFH 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsourced quotes aren't really legitimate anyways. The original article was carefully designed to have explicit sources for every quote. -LtNOWIS 03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • While Kuralyov's version didn't have a source listed, the one originally posted does. - Lord Hydronium 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "I will continue to place this quote in until someone can tell me why it shouldn't be, with an argument that consists of more than it's unfair to Traviss." All right, I'll do my best. Reason #1: it's irrelevant. What does it have to do with Star Wars? Just about nothing at all, as far as I can tell. Reason #2: It is the ultimate example of out-of-context quoting. For one thing, it doesn't even include the whole sentence. That sentence happens to have a "but" right after the quoted part ends, which tends to have a big impact on the overall meaning of the sentence. Reason #3: It's inflammatory. Proof? This discussion. Combined with Reasons #1 and #2, I think that's reason enough to leave it out. GeneralTarfful 01:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How about just "If Star Wars ever goes down the drain, it will be because of authors like Traviss." on the admin's page? Quotes as far as I see it (if they need to be there at all) should just be on the Star Wars universe or the writing/drawing/creating of Star Wars, not its fanbase. What's insane is not mentioning the controversy on the author's page and why it's controversial and that goes for Zahn et al.


"These people have stated publicly on another site that they want to end my career."
―Karen Traviss speaking about Wookieepedia

[2]

So this is the person that we're supposed to bend over to placate? Has she pussy-wipped every single fan on the internet? She treats us like shit, perosnally spreads lies and condones her cronies to try to shut us down, and we're supposed to apologize for it? Kuralyov 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • BS, Kuralyov. She isnt talking about wookieepedia and you know it. Stop propagating negative ideas that isnt based on fact. Just because you hate her doesnt mean you are right. The real quote specifies that people other than responsible wookieepedians have hijacked this wiki and wikipedia to create a negative image of her. --Razzy1319 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • She's referring to wookieepedians who also post on that site. So what he is saying is accurate. You claim's come down to ignoring that and attacking him, which is the exact same thing she does - rathe then admit that she siad these things, she attacks the people who simply reported it. Very similar to Fox News attacking the New York Times. -- Lowkey
  • She treats you guys badly, Kuralyov. She's always been polite with me and most other fans. I frankly don't care if she wants you guys to die. Which is why I don't have a problem with this page. If we limit this to relevant, sourceable quotes, it doesn't actually reflect badly on her. Right now it's mostly positive. -LtNOWIS 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia is Not A Battleground

It's part of Wookieepedia's Official Policy: Wookieepedia is not a battleground. But this article is making it one. It frankly isn't very helpful for anyone wanting to learn about Star Wars.

Only four real-world people have quote pages. Don Bies, George Lucas, Chris Avellone, and (of course) Karen Traviss. The selection of Ms. Traviss is far from random. This page was created with a bias in mind.

Some suggest that, as this is a significant controversy in the SW community at the moment, it is worthy of recognition. Maybe that's true; maybe not (see below). But if we're going to talk about this, a quotes page trying to pass itself off as encyclopedic and unbiased is not the way to do it. I recently suggested on the Article Requests page that maybe we should have a separate article dedicated to fandom controversies. I don't know how that would work; I'd love to hear some thoughts on it.

But here's a larger question. What exactly is the goal of Wookieepedia? Is it to chronicle the GFFA, or to chronicle Star Wars as a franchise? I think it's fine that it has, to some extent, "behind the scenes" info. But should that ever become the focus? Should BTS articles ever go beyond simple who-wrote-what and start chronicling the mindset of the fan base?

I really don't know. But here's what I do know:

CONS of this page

  1. This page is contributing to a schism in the SW fan base.
  2. This page hurts feelings.
  3. This page hurts Wookieepedia's reputation.
  4. This page was created with a bias in mind.
  5. This page is selective in its quotes.

What's worse, lying or not telling the whole truth? Well, the latter is sneakier, harder to pin down, and easier to slip past someone's lax defenses. True, no quotes page could ever be comprehensive. But as soon as you start including negative quotes (or partial out-of-context quotes, at least), the intention becomes somewhat more sinister.

PROS

  1. This page is related to Star Wars, so from an inclusionism POV (ha, POV, appropriate...) it should exist.
  2. This page indirectly documents an important controversy.

Lowkey's statements under "Role of an Encyclopedia" are valid. Yes, sometimes the role of an encyclopedia can be to document controversy. But "normal" (read: non-Star Wars) encyclopedias never have to deal with in-universe vs. out-of-universe. "Normal" encyclopedias therefore only ever document in-universe controversies, because we puny humans are as oblivious to OOU controversies as Lama Su is to this one.

(Haha, it's amusing to imagine some 11th-dimensional puppeteers arguing over whether or not they made one human faction or another too weak to the point that this world's entertaining battles are no longer believeable. Come on, those minutemen could never have seriously defeated a superpower like the British Empire... :p)

So, first thing this community should decide: how much should Wookieepedia focus on OOU? Second thing: if the community determines it IS Wookieepedia's job to document fan controversy, shouldn't in be done in a blunt, straightforward manner instead of creeping into quote pages? In other words: we don't need a quotes page to commemorate this argument, first and foremost because a casual viewer isn't being explicitly told there's an issue here.

If there's ever some wiki-wide effort to compile interesting real-world Star Wars-related quotes, then I suppose Ms. Traviss should get one. But until then, its existance is unnecessary and even damaging and/or hurtful to Wookieepedia, any LFL VIPs unlucky enough to get caught up in it, and the community. GeneralTarfful 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree! It makes us look really bad when our administrators fight among themselves. Maybe we should bring this before one of the Wikia staff like Angela or maybe Jimbo Wales himself. I am not voting at all since I see this is nothing more than a feud, which is little more than a waste of our editing time. There are so many articles like Survivor's Quest, Marvel Star Wars, Classic Star Wars, Young Jedi Knights, Junior Jedi Knights, Fool's Bargain, C-3PO and Lando Calrissian which along with their related topics need to be improved greatly and all we are doing here is having a feud which is just a wast of time. MyNz - Zainal 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have only one comment to this: "This page is selective in its quotes"
Find positive ones, if they exist. No-one is stopping anyone from posting that. Neither is anyone stopping quote-pages for other LFL-affiliates either. If people could "joke" about blowing off someone's head or put up a warrant for their deaths (Like with the author behind "Crystal Star", or GL himself), adding quotes made by an author today should be no trouble in comparison. VT-16 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Look three sentences after that one. I had a paragraph of explanation in-between pros and cons for a reason. :) "...no quotes page could ever be comprehensive. But as soon as you start including negative quotes (or partial out-of-context quotes, at least), the intention becomes somewhat more sinister." So I guess what I was trying to say is that ANY quotes page is going to be selective, and once you throw in potentially harmful ones that selectivity becomes a problem. Being selective isn't as much an issue when you're collecting joke quotes or sayings, because they can stand on their own. (Jokes and sayings are, in fact, often meant to be able to.) As for your second point - "Find positive ones" - actually, someone is stopping me from posting that. At the moment, the quotes page is protected, and I'm no admin... far from it. :) GeneralTarfful 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SFH, this isn't becoming the Second Great Edit War. I think the more correct term is the Wookieepedia Civil War. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not really biased against Traviss right now. As it stands, most of the quotes are positive. In fact, most of them were found by me, one of her supporters. Anyways, if anyone has any quotes, just save the info in a text file so it can be uploaded later. -LtNOWIS 02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, at the moment it's all right. It could still use a bit of editing, but it's all right. Thing is, it's protected right now. How long would it stay that way? I don't know. But then, how useful is it? Not very. How controvsial & inflammatory is it? Very. I just think it's a dark & slippery slope to start covering fan opinions in an encyclopedia. This thing needs to be put to rest. I feel like if we keep the page and unprotect it, the debate would just go on and on as to which quotes to include. That's why I suggested that we contain all of this stuff in one "Controversis" article, delete the quotes page, and lay it to rest. Another possibility would be to leave the page under protection indefinitely. But that might turn out to be forever, and if such a peripheral page is so inflammatory that it has to be under permanent protection, that may be a sign it's not worth having. It's crazy that we're fighting so much over this. Pretty soon, Wookieepedia may need something like this. GeneralTarfful 02:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's my main problem with you, Tarfful: you seem to want to change this into somehting that Dark Moose would not have a problem with. And maybe this is just me, but why should anyone here give a rat's ass what Dark Moose says or thinks about us? He is a flat-out, self-proclaimed enemy of Wookieepedia, and he doesn't even have an account. I see no reason why anything he says should factor into this one way or another. Kuralyov 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And here's my problem with you, Kuralyov: Forum:Personal agendas taking over. --Azizlight 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think most of the users voting "prune" or "delete" want the whole of Wookieepedia to be exactly as DarkMoose wishes it: most voters for trimming it down probably just want it reduced to something he shouldn't have a problem with. If he still has a problem with how it is after that, I honestly don't care. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, Silly Dan. Looking back on my comment with my "delete" vote, it did put too much emphasis on DM's blog. But I was only using it as an example, and I've tried to make that more clear in my revised comment up there. The issue isn't that DM has a problem with it, it's that DM's problem with it is justified. My goal isn't to appease DM. My goals are twofold: one, to rework this into something that isn't a biased attack on an author based on personal opinion of something pretty trivial. Two, I want the fighting to stop. But I don't want the fighting to stop at the expense of Goal #1. The term "enemies of Wooieepedia" has come up a number of times. But it's pages like these that create more enemies. And another thing: DM isn't a "flat-out" enemy of Wookieepedia, just like KT hasn't made death threats and her fans aren't conspiring to spread their propaganda to every corner of SW fandom and corrupt Wookieepedia. DM said in his blog that Wookieepedia has merit. This of all debates should be kept clean of misquoting, disregard for context, and hyperbole... at least as much as possible. GeneralTarfful 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the keep votes

OK, right now the keep votes are ahead. However, there are two distinct types of keep votes: one group wants to keep and expand the article, while another wants to keep but severely trim the article (and I'm in favour of the latter, myself — if she's talking about anything other than her writing, purge it.) Let's keep that in mind before either side yells "consensus." (Maybe we need to resort the keep votes?) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • We can have a second vote on the talk page as to the purpose of the article and the nature of the quotes. -LtNOWIS 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I concur. As it stands, the page has been unilaterally edited to the point of objective uselessness. If a new vote is not created to address its future purpose and content, this talk page, and any referendum reach on it, becomes completely pointless. Ibimus 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A compromise

I think most of us agree that this whole debate has done little more than divide the community here. The way it's going now, the article will be kept, and then undergo endless bickering on the talk page regarding which quotes to include, wherein many of the arguments brought up above will be repeated. There will be hard feelings, 3RR violations, page protections, and in general just a WikiMess. Instead of that, I'm proposing a compromise:

We remove all quotes from this quote article that are not strictly SW-related – this means everything regarding Traviss' personal life, fan-relations, etc. For the quotes that we do include, we will give relevant background information and context, unless the quote can obviously stand on its own. However, we will document Traviss' fan-relations controversy on her article page, where it will be given a brief but thorough NPOV summary (including quotes, albeit in context and sourced) representing both sides fairly.

Like any compromise, there has to be a bit of give-and-take on both sides here. Some of you may not want to document the controversy at all; however, at this point, I think this is the best way out of this mess. Is anybody willing to agree to this compromise? RMF 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Fandalorians will never agree to this, for the mere fact that even a NPOV summary will put her in a less-than-perfect light. And then DM will make another blog about it, and all the usual suspects here will then put it up for VFD. Kuralyov 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, I agree to this so long as "NPOV" means "equal represntation" and not "WhiteBoy et al decide what goes into the article and ban anyone who changes it." Also, I want an assurance that we won't continue to pander to DM, TFN members, or any other KT/LFL cronies. Kuralyov 05:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, LFL does own the franchise, so we should absolutely comply with any of their wishes. And if any other authors or VIPs bring up any potential POV or other issues, we should try to settle that issue too in as courteous and respectful a manner as possible. But beyond that, everyone's voice should be considered as much as anyone else's - no more, no less, and that includes non-members, because sometimes they can have the best and freshest perspective. GeneralTarfful 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I mean if any non-members bring up issues, we should try to resolve them and not just brush them off as "enemies of Wookieepedia." In terms of actually editing pages, admins will still of course have the most power. GeneralTarfful 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, Tarfful. While I disagreed with alot of the blog entry, I thought DM brought up some decent points. We do not have a perfect site, and we are wise to listen to others' criticisms of our site, evaluate them, and try to learn from them when they are valid. WhiteBoy 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree to the compromise, and if DM does write another blog about it, it only proves he has too much time on his hands. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats not necesarily true Kuralyov I can be whats called a Fandalorian, but above that I am a Wookieepedian (albeit a new one) and I agree very much to this compromise. I belive tis a ogod way to stop this infighting which has only detracted from what is an otherwise valuble and useful wiki. I've stayed out of this argument until now, but i agree for a compromise no matter what my personal feelings for the matter or the people involved in it are. The only way we can solve a problem on a NPOV encyclopedia is to make NPOV judgements.--ARC spec ops 117 05:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see a summary of any Traviss controversy ever being NPOV. All we need to do is establish a procedure for deciding on quotes, instead of just having people put'em up. -LtNOWIS 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia does a decent enough job with their controversial topics, and someone like George W. Bush is certainly a more high profile person than Karen Traviss. - Lord Hydronium 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There must be procedure then, and the above proposal looks fine to me. Only SW quotes, all sourced and contexted and everything. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree to this, too. As for DM, I don't see why anyone here should give a shit what he thinks. If he has a problem, he can register and do things in the way Wikis are done. - Lord Hydronium 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I [maybe - see comments below] agree, as per my reasons in my Delete comment above. It may be hard to keep everything neutral, but I think this is the best shot we have. Again, I've never cared about mentioning the controversy so much as the manner in which the Quotes page presented it. Thanks RMF. :) GeneralTarfful 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea as long as the criticism page will be handled with the plenty of that "objective uselessness" (quoting Ibimus there) that makes a neutral article - very similar to the Fan criticism of George Lucas page. It should be handled with respect toward the person while still bringing up criticisms in an objective, tactful manner. Though there are plenty of criticisms of George, we all still love him and are grateful for the contributions he has made to the Star Wars universe. And that's what we focus on here. WhiteBoy 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • While I'm a bit worried that partisans of one side or another will hijack the main article, I agree with this compromise for the quote article, even if it means we have to lock the article every so often to prevent it becoming a flame magnet again. So I agree with WhiteBoy. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking back at some of the discussion related to the original page, I'm actually a bit hesistant now seeing as how there were problems with POV on that page before the quotes page even became an issue. Ms. Traviss herself removed some of that content (SW.com mods w/ your backwards paging: Mar 7 06), so perhaps its best if we respect the direct wishes of the author. At the very least, I'm going to beef up the page with some basic info. GeneralTarfful 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Not all of us frequent the SW.com board (I hate navigating the awful message board layout, and refuse to do it unless I have to), so how were we supposed to know she had a problem? Yes, jSarek did post a link, but if she had a problem with the article, she should have come to the talk page and addressed it herself, not have Dark Moose come over and do it for her. Threatening to edit the page to prove a point is in violation of WP:POINT, and because half the community at that point probably did not know of Ms. Traviss' displeasure with the article, she now holds us all in contempt. How is that fair? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I would also point out that Wikipedia's article on Traviss does include portions of the controversy, re: the number of clones. I think it's notable enough to mention that and the related fan controversy in the article, as long as it is kept within reasonable limits and respect (not necessarily agreement, but respect) is shown for the subject of the article. RMF 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's interesting. In one of her posts in the thread I linked to above, she pointed out the Wikipedia entry as an example of a better and more professional one, so I used it as inspiration for my expansion of her page here. But that section on the controversy wasn't there when she linked to it. GeneralTarfful 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I hadn't seen that post either, until I started researching. But I think the point is that the page shouldn't have been written in a negative light in the first place. Anyway, what do we do about that? What do we do when an author has explicitly removed and denounced something they think is misrepresentative & hurtful? Unfortunately, it seems that the saved copies of the page when she edited it were deleted from the History (which is strange), so I can't see exactly what she removed, but I think the gist of it is clear enough from that TOS post. Anyway, I've just added some more general info to her page, so that if the controversy does end up being added, it will no longer take up so much space relative to the total length of the article. We don't want to sound like supporting a number that some people didn't like is one of the only things she's ever done in her life. GeneralTarfful 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't even agree with the compromise idea that only SW-related quotes from Traviss should be in the article. Look at the articles for Carrie Fisher or other actors and real life people; they contain information completely unrelated to their work in SW. And that's fine, because while this is SW Wiki, these are real people whose lives aren't soley defined by SW. The articles are even categorized as "Behind the Scenes." Furthermore, Traviss's negative quotes are related to SW. Like it or not, that is how she chooses to interact with many SW fans, and this has escalated into a fairly well-known issue at a number of the more prominent SW forums. All of this is about a SW issue: the supposed 3 million clones. And just look at all the quotes in the article right now. All of them are about SW, or her work in SW. The people voting "Delete" because this is supposedly non-SW, or has no place in a SW encyclopedia, aren't making sense. This is all SW-related information, albeit behind the scenes. As long as all the quotes are significant, not being taken out of context, and are "serious" (not joking or exxageration), I don't see anything wrong with this. JimRaynor55 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Counting of Votes

Just to clarify, there are two votes in the "For" category that have been rescinded, and one in the against taken back. At present it is 20-For, 18-Against, and as Silly Dan has just pointed out, one of those "For" votes, Ibimus, has only ever edited this page. That would make it 19 to 18. --Eyrezer 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • One of the against votes is the same way, so that's 19-17. - Lord Hydronium 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As I was about to say before Eyrezer did: two users above are noted as having only contributed here and their userpages. A few other users may have been registered for a while, but with a fairly low edit count or a long recent absence. Others may have joined recently in order to have a voice in this discussion, but may have been contributing anonymously before. In my opinion, only those two votes have any cause to be discarded, and this should only be a concern if we find that the only way to end the discussion is to simply count votes: these users should still be allowed to have a voice. In fact, I'm somewhat pleased that there appears at first glance to be little evidence of vote-tampering on either side. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a No Consensus VFD. Since some people keep changing their votes and some don't know what they are voting for, I suggest either closing this as a No Consensus, or restart the vote altogether. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, from what I've seen, this is an issue for many Wookieepedians. I think it would be wise to restart the vote. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • On a positive note, this is the largest turnout I have seen on a vote here.--Eyrezer 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't see any point in restarting the vote, given that in a wiki format people are able to immediately edit their vote as they see fit. But maybe for clarity's sake, we remove the strike-through's? WhiteBoy 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the whole debate just needs a little more publicity - get more voters in and hopefully a larger margin will begin to appear. HavetStorm 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't help but think any efforts at further publicity would translate to people with very strong opinions one way or another trying to "get out the vote" for their "side", rather than people giving helpful comments leading to some sort of compromise. Right now, the only way I can see this coming to a conclusion is if (a) some of the regular users supporting "keep and expand" soften their stance to "keep but limit" while some of the regulars voting for delete accept "keep but watch for NPOV and irrelevancies", or (b) more voters for any form of "keep" change their minds and go for "delete as not worth the trouble." I was for option (a) from the start, but attacks of apathy about all this foolishness are tempting me to go for (b). —Silly Dan (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, I'm one step away from changing my vote, because I just don't think the climate here is capable of sustaining the page appropriately even if it does stay - and I don't think we should have it at all if it's limited to only mods editing it. HavetStorm 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)