Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Quote:Karen Traviss

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Delete

 * 1) Ozzel 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete, see comments. RMF 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Dark Spork 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) If we can't have a respectable page, we shouldn't have one at all.  Someone gonna clean it up, or should we just delete it?  WhiteBoy 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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. &mdash;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, 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.  StarNeptune Talk 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. &mdash;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) 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)
 * I agree.  StarNeptune Talk 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.  StarNeptune Talk 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 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)
 * 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)