One of the disappointments about living in the UK and working full-time is I usually miss out the shit hitting the fan, as it seems to have done today. Oh well.
Zap Rowsdower, on Jul 21 2006, 01.07, said:
The Wiki Drama Continues. Before I begin, I just want to state that that I thought that 'drive-by edit' of the Goodkind wiki was childish and an unbecoming act of vandalism. However, I will say this in favor of the vandal: he probably was just doing it for a lark and not seriosuly expecting the misinformation to remain undetected and become a permanent part of wiki.
However, it seems that Mystar regards the Goodkind wiki as his own personal stomping ground. :rolleyes: It seems he desperately,
desperately wants the article to include the phrase
'phenomenally successful' in reference to Goodkind. I would even go so far as to say he has a bee in his bonnet about it. Not only that, but it seems the Goodkind fans have taken to attacking moderators and anyone who edits Goodkind's wiki so that it portrays him as less than a God on Earth.
I think I can safely maintain that almost anything on the GIOG site is exceeded by Terry's actual fans.
The Wikipedia situation is just lame beyond all reasonable belief. I think Mystar needs to learn that Wikipedia articles need to be 100% neutral-POV. They are not there for publicity purposes. Last week I had to gut the Steven Erikson page on the request of a mod simply because someone had gone a bit wild listing stuff directly out of the books' appendices, which is a) dubious from a copyright angle and B) unnecessary in a brief summary of the author and books page. And you do need to quote a source for every single claim on every single page. Some people don't and sometimes it's not a problem if it's not contentious, but if called on a topic by
anyone, you do have to prove your case. For example, 'phenomenally successful' could be attributed to Tolkien (the biggest selling fantasy novel of all time) or Rowling (the biggest selling living fantasy author at the moment with a vast cultural impact), but I don't see how Goodkind's sales (even if taken as 50 million) could be said to be elevated above other 'really successful' authors like Jordan (who must have sold more), Pratchett (who definitely has sold more) or Dan Brown (who is getting on for selling the same amount with just four books).
The Lord O, on Jul 21 2006, 01.33, said:
If I had any sort of moral clarity at all, I would push Mystar off a cliff for the good of mankind. Jeez!
Lightning Lord, on Jul 21 2006, 16.19, said:
I hurt from reading the page it brought me to. I am sure "mystar" has an "ability" "somewhere" to "write." I cannot be "sure," though, as his "posting" appeared to be "written" by a "4 year old parapalegic with no arm beneath the elbow who was born blind and in a non-English speaking country.*"
Easy with the personal comments and insults, people, as related on Page 1 of this thread. This also goes for Mystar. People here are clearly not lacking in 'moral clarity', nor are they 'terrorists'. Suggesting otherwise is frankly preposterous.
GK, on Jul 21 2006, 19.13, said:
Imagine in WW2, if we'd have declared war on poison gas chambers, and we said all these jews are dying in gas chambers, we have to stop this, we're gonna declare war on poison gas chambers, we're gonna find the money of the people who have backed the gas chambers constructors and we're gonna find the poison gas importers and we're gonna stop them. Uh, in WW2 we rightly declared war on nazis, because it's an evil philosophy that was trying to destroy us, but in this war, we're declaring war on a tactic, like we're saying we're gonna outlaw the blitzkrieg. Well you can't declare war on a tactic, you must declare war on the philosophy that is using that tactic.
MinDonner, on Jul 21 2006, 19.17, said:
Hmm, I don't recall America's joining of WW2 having anything to do with ideology, other than "this country is attacking us and our allies, let's (belatedly) get 'em!" .. gah, what am I doing? The Yeard speaks truth. It is known.
WW2 is my specialist area of history, so a few facts to set the record straight.
1) The United States never declared war on Nazi Germany. Roosevelt was keen on it, especially after the US and German fleets started exchanging fire in the Atlantic from early 1941 onwards, but the Senate did not think they could justify getting involved in another European war. Even after Pearl Harbour, the mood in the Senate seemed to be for prosecuting a war against Japan but not against Germany (despite the German-Japanese alliance). Luckily for Roosevelt, the decision was taken out of the Senate's hands four days later when Hitler, in arguably his single most pointlessly demented decision of the conflict (even startling the Japanese ambassador to Berlin, who didn't think the Nazis would live up the alliance), declared war against the United States.
2) The Allies knew about the Final Solution from intercepts and prisoners, almost certainly from early 1944 onwards. Bombing the death camps was even discussed. The news was not made public, nor was any action taken against the death camps simply because it was tactically difficult to do anything about the crisis until the US and the Russians actually overran the camps themselves, and for morale reasons.
3) The tactics of blitzkrieg were naturally not outlawed (because they make fricking good military sense) but later used by the Russians (in WWII at Stalingrad and the road to Berlin), Israel (to defeat Egypt in the Yom Kippur War) and by the Americans (among others) in the Gulf War.
4) The Nazi ideology was indeed defeated and destroyed. It was replaced by a communist dictatorship which terrorised the eastern half of Europe for 55 years instead which Roosevelt seemed to have no problem with. Not knocking the Americans overall in this instance; Patton certainly had the right idea in pressing on to Berlin and Roosevelt's hero worship of Stalin's fortitude during the war was certainly understandable at the time (would America have fought on with 30 million dead?). Just to point out that America's desire for an ideological war was non-existent. The war was fought on practical grounds for realisticly achievable goals.
But, naturally, off-topic ;)
0
This topic is locked
