Talk:Karen Traviss
From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.
[edit] Wow. Haven't seen this much glossed over editing since Pat lee on wikipedia.
Honestly, I've gotta say, this type of whitewashing is a disappointment. Never mind the issue's with "who did worse" or who was right and wrong in the debate. I can understand avoiding taking sides in the issue, but the careful removal of any of the controversies from her page while leaving them on the respective story sections is sad. The controversies were one of the main points of her noteriety in the fandom, and frankly a major point of her notability as a star wars author. The claim that any comments are unsourcable due to self editing seems odd, given the fact that adding a (retrieved on) date is typical for any internet citation. Furthermore, search of the archives indicates noone even attempted to check internet archiving websites for complete versions of her posts. I've lurked here frequently, and even edited a few articles from time to time (granted before I had this isp) and never even looked at this article until today. Wish I had. The amount of inconstantly protective treatment this article has gotten is pathetic. Turk198.146.54.181 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here [1]is an archive of the site that holds a few of her comments. Don't know if they're the most pertinent ones, I'll be checking that out another time. Just wanted to point the archive out. Turk 198.146.54.181 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here [2] Is an archive of another of her blogs. Not sure if it is from the right time period. 198.146.54.181 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a site detailing the controversy: [3] It has some interesting quotes.
- I looked through all those sites, and did my best to write a good, neutral controversies section. Please provide input before making changes (or if you just want to tell me what a spectacular job I've done - jk). Xanofar 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is there some reason the controversies section doesn't detail the actual source of the controversy? Naming a couple stories and cryptic references to now-deleted posts doesn't help anyone (i.e. me) understand the issue.
- I looked through all those sites, and did my best to write a good, neutral controversies section. Please provide input before making changes (or if you just want to tell me what a spectacular job I've done - jk). Xanofar 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a site detailing the controversy: [3] It has some interesting quotes.
- Here [2] Is an archive of another of her blogs. Not sure if it is from the right time period. 198.146.54.181 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here [1]is an archive of the site that holds a few of her comments. Don't know if they're the most pertinent ones, I'll be checking that out another time. Just wanted to point the archive out. Turk 198.146.54.181 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Since it's been nearly 9 months since the original complaint about the controversy section and there hasn't been any improvement, I decided to be bold and give it the axe. Personally, I think it's a better article without it. -Thunderforge 03:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Erm... So rather than improving a part of the article noting something important about her career from a fan perspective, and notable about it reguardless, you axed it? I'm reverting for now, I'll try to improve it later tonight.208.95.176.218 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, fixed the broken link you guys deleted with a repost she did.208.95.176.218 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Erm... So rather than improving a part of the article noting something important about her career from a fan perspective, and notable about it reguardless, you axed it? I'm reverting for now, I'll try to improve it later tonight.208.95.176.218 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
