Why have you removed the evidence used by sellers when disagreeing with Koontz's version? The section now says there _is_ controversy but then fails to cite chapter and verse on the strength of the controversy. To say "this is what Koontz says" but then remove what other people say is to remove one side of an argument. In what way is it "improperly cited"? There are links, explanations, and cited websites.
Who _are_ you by the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.70.155 (talk • contribs) July 26, 2013
I changed the section because what you refer to as evidence against Koontz's version is not, in fact, evidence -- it's accusation, based on speculation, based on facts that could more sensibly be interpreted than the manner in which the discussed accusers have chosen to interpret them. Basically the "evidence" was conspiratorial in nature, and I'm pretty sure conspiracy theories have no place on wikipedia.
Besides, if they were properly cited with reliable sources, that would be one thing. Just because there are citation numbers and links, doesn't mean the sources cited are valid -- did you actually look at the sources? #30 leads to an ebay page for Koontz's books, but contains no information. What's that all about? And #29, where most of the info for the section in question is from, is actually from a Koontz website, which mentions those facts to contradict the claims that whomever edited the wiki article previously clearly intended to reference.
And speaking generally: are we really going to follow a precedent to include, on every wiki article about a person or event, every single conspiracy theory on any subject whatsoever? If there were more compelling evidence, and from a reliable source, I would agree that it should be included. But it's intellectually dishonest and needlessly denigrating of the subject (Koontz, in this case) to include this material here when there's no actual evidence -- just accusations.
So look -- I reedited it so that the fact that accusations exist is still there, but the so-far baseless specifics of the accusations themselves have been removed. The fact that the controversy exists, and is relatively well known, is valid info. But not the other stuff. Since Koontz has better knowledge of himself than "some booksellers", then the benefit of the doubt on info about Koontz should go to Koontz, and the onus of proof should be on anyone wishing to establish something contrary to what Koontz says.
Finally, I'm not sure what you want to know, asking who I am. Wikipedia is public access, and I have an account. Does anything else matter? I'm not related to Koontz, if that's what you mean, nor am I him, nor have I met him, nor do I work for him, nor for any publisher associated with him. I'm just a guy who saw a wiki page that seemed fishy, checked up on it, and changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Beef (talk • contribs) July 26, 2013
- Further to 5.66.70.155's question of "Why have you removed the evidence used by sellers when disagreeing with Koontz's version?", Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy requires that:
Which is the point of the discussion in Talk:Dean Koontz#Career / erotica. RossPatterson (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)We must ... [b]e very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, ... Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ...
Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ...
What RossPatterson said. Thank you. Chief Beef (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Chief Beef: I asked because you have only made 5 contributions to the 'pedia. One in 2011, and 4 in 2013, 2 of them about Koontz. I do indeed question who you are -- flinging statements like "Basically the "evidence" was conspiratorial in nature," is a crock; there is no conspiracy against Koontz, there is evidence based on Koontz's _own_ (current) words, together with words that were known since 1970. Koontz says he wrote HUNG. Koontz says this in AGAIN DANGEROUS VISIONS (1972) and he says it again on his page for Collectors. He says he disavows the text of the book, but he does not dispute the book was bought and published - and it was published under the name "Leonard Chris" by Cameo Books. BOUNCE GIRL (a novel Koontz wrote, but which he says was edited) was also published by Cameo _under Koontz's name_. Further, Koontz tries to deny his "non-fiction" work from the same publisher, despite Koontz _selling copies of the books through Geis's SFR_ in the early 1970s. If a bookseller says he bought the book from Koontz, and offers it for sale - what are _you_ going to accuse him of? "the so-far baseless specifics of the accusations" is from where? The bases are articles, letters, books, and interviews from Koontz in which he _did_ talk about doing these books - and I can tell you that Koontz has never _challenged_ a bookseller on this, all Koontz's denials have been carefully couched to be ambiguous and / or incomplete. "Since Koontz has better knowledge of himself than "some booksellers", then the benefit of the doubt on info about Koontz should go to Koontz, and the onus of proof should be on anyone wishing to establish something contrary to what Koontz says" - I am sure any number of liars have "better knowledge of themselves", but prefer to tell the lie, and that's why Wikipedia has stopped so many people from editing their own entries. That Koontz is defended by some, based on what he says, true or not, shows how far Wikipedia can diverge from its roots - balance. "On this matter.. A says this.. B says that.." What you are saying is "A says that, and does not need to provide proof; B says that, but should be silenced because they do not provide proof." The identity of the books Koontz wrote for Cameo _is_ known, I have friends who have many of them but (a) they don't bruit it on the web because the price of the books would skyrocket, and (b) there is no full list of Cameo on the web. A certain number exist _and_ have been named by Koontz, that _is_ a fact, and that _fact_ was the balance inside the controversy; you have removed facts which might enable people to examine and verify the controversy.
Ross Patterson: to use phrases like "or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" shows how far off beam this discussion has become; if the books had been westerns or war thrillers, how would you have phrased your remark? You are not talking about the substance of the complaint, you are talking about the type of work under discussion, and _that_ shows you have lost the plot. "With regard to the subject's privacy" means what? What in the discussion breaks Koontz's privacy? What "harm" is involved in showing that Koontz wrote 30 books he now disavows?
You have both simply proven why Wikipedia is now distrusted by most people - you massage the truth about the current world, and so you end up inaccurate and biased. 20 years from now, when Koontz recants again, stops lying about fanzine editors, about the copyright issue, about editing, letters, and conventions he attended (at which he discussed the columns he disavows), when that happens, no doubt Wikipedia (if it then exists) will recant too, and try to show it was "doing the right thing". But you are not. Not all evidence is on the web, not all sources can be cited, not all information can be spoken, and for all those cases, Koontz remains a liar, and Wikipedia remains a dupe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.70.155 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Those are not my remarks, they are a direct quotes from Wikipedia's policy on biographies, which holds such articles to a much higher standard than all others. I suggest you read it carefully. As to "Not all evidence is on the web, not all sources can be cited, not all information can be spoken, and for all those cases, Koontz remains a liar, and Wikipedia remains a dupe.", I'd say "Wikipedia doesn't require references to be on the web, merely published, verifiable, and reliable; all sources used in a biographical article must be cited per policy; Wikipedia doesn't care about truth; and meh." RossPatterson (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You said:
What you are saying is "A says that, and does not need to provide proof; B says that, but should be silenced because they do not provide proof."
That, in its essence, is the truth, whether we like it or not. History must always have a perspective; it's impossible not to. The reason it's impossible is because, if one perspective is not favored even slightly over another, than literally every single thing said, by any contemporary, will be given equal time and equal attention, resulting in actual facts being hidden beneath waves of theory purported to be fact itself (this will especially be a problem for historians looking back on our Age of Too Much Information). You have to weed out material that isn't reliable, properly sourced, etc.
There are numerous methods used to determine where that burden of proof lies, but the short version is: when in doubt, and when all sources are potentially of equal bias, go with the source closest to the subject. In this case, that's the subject himself. And wikipedia, as RossPatterson pointed out, has its own approved method of determining these things. It may not be perfect, but it is functional and generally fair, by erring on the side of caution when it comes to possible slander.
I'm not even disagreeing that it's possible Koontz wrote those things he now denies. It certainly IS possible; it might even be likely. But there isn't strong enough evidence in my view to include that contrary information on what amounts to an encyclopedia entry meant to be definitive about the subject of all things Koontz. And clearly you think there *is* strong enough evidence. But we're doing this on wikipedia, not on your or my personal website. We have to abide by the stated rules, or quit.
Your point about me removing information that could help people examine the controversy is incorrect. The fact that controversy exists is still present in the article; while only Koontz's version of events is given at this point, there's more than enough material there for intelligent readers to see that there's still room for Koontz to be lying. And if that intelligent reader has other reason to suspect that might be the case, the information as it sits now could still confirm their suspicion.
But what wikipedia *shouldn't* be for, is including information that demagogues a particular point of view. There's nothing in the Koontz article right now that whitewashes Koontz's possible involvement in writing erotica. There's nothing that excuses him, or presents his words as particularly true. Everyone capable of reading should know that people might lie about themselves to make themselves look good; that doesn't need to be pointed out, especially not by including accusations based on one possible reading of facts when those accusations *have no evidence other than the strength of their own argument*. Again, examine the citations: an ebay auction, and the author's own webpage (which is the same citation *in favor* of the author's argument). Not what I'd call reliable.
Finally, my wiki activity: five posts makes me suspicious? Really? If you think the fact that I made "only five posts" somehow points to me being unreliable, or a secret Koontz supporter, then you're not doing a very good job convincing me that you are a good judge of what is or is not a conspiracy theory. Maybe I just pop on here every now and then to edit something? Maybe I don't devote my life to wikipedia changing, but have an account because I value public access to accurate knowledge? Lots of possibilities. In this case I happened to be reading an article on Koontz from another website, came to wikipedia to confirm a few facts in that article, found the section on the erotica controversy, thought that it was not significantly verified or properly sourced, and changed it. That's all. No conspiracies about me. I'm just a dude with a computer and a job doing historical research.
And yes, I know all valid sources aren't on the internet. If the anti-Koontz bits were sourced from a trustworthy book or a magazine article or audio recording, we'd be on the same side. But they aren't, so we aren't. So I'm done with this discussion now; it's taking up way too much of my time, and probably yours too. It seems likely you've had a nerve touched by this subject, given your words in your most recent post; I have no wish to offend or engage in a "he said/they said" kind of thing, so I'm dropping off here.Chief Beef (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Especially that last comment. RossPatterson (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)