|
More on one of the sources: California Sorcery is a collection of fiction from "The Group" (California writers including Ray Bradbury, Harlan Ellison, and Robert Bloch who were responsible for the bulk of The Twilight Zone scripts). The book has an overview of the development of the group, with biographical details on each member provided there and, in brief, before that member's story.
The Last Dangerous Visions
- Can we please quit cutting this part out? It's getting annoying. -james_anatidae, 2004-05-09, 02:22 EST
- That's it, I'm requesting page protection. I don't really care about the book, its these useless deletions that are bugging me. -james_anatidae, 2004-06-11, 03:02 EST
Since this part is based on hearsay and rumor, it's pretty obvious why it keeps getting cut from a factual article.
- Seems pretty factually-based to me. Which bits, exactly, do you think are unfounded or improperly qualified in the article? I'll need a lot more convincing before I'll let that paragraph stay deleted on this basis. Bryan 07:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Charles Platt "incident"
- On the issue of the Charles Platt "incident", the paragraph comes across as unsubstaniated rumor mongering. A secret non-aggression "pact" that H.E. supposedly violated many times? Sounds libelous without further evidence. If we must keep this paragraph, I'd prefer to indicate it as an apocryphal story about this author, of which there are many. I'd even support a separate section devoted to these types of stories, as long as it is clear that the validity of many of them are in dispute (or at least that the details may have gotten grossly distorted over the years). If citations are available, they should be referenced. In any case, the paragraph does seem out of place to me (as opposed to the LDV paragraph, which, while apparently controversial, at least seems to be written in a factual manner) - chad.netzer
- The idea of "secret non-aggression "pact"" is nonsense and should definitely be removed as inaccurate. It's a garbled version of a true part of the story, that they had a truce agreement at one time, which isn't a secret. There's a description about it from Charles Platt in the following message:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/e1b8b77a080e614a
--Seth Finkelstein 00:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Direct contact with Ellison / stubbing the article
Harlan Ellison contacted us to complain about several errors in this article. Danny is in communication (or will be) with him to get more details and research this a bit more. In the meantime, we should take it slow and easy with the article.
It is likely that the anon who copied text from Harlan Ellison's website was authorized to do so by Ellison. That text is problematic for us, in that it's written in a press release style, but of course the information there will be helpful to us in improving the article.
One problem is that Ellison has had trouble with a persistent detractor posting stuff on the web that isn't true (as I understand it), so we have to take even more care than we normally do in making sure that everything we say in the article is properly researched.
I'm sure we'll get it right soon, and in the meantime, I hope this note is helpful in clarifying what is going on. :-)
Jimbo Wales 23:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's been a couple of months now, is there a progress report? I popped by here in search of information about his lawsuit vs. AOL, and I find that that's among the deleted material even though it's quite well known and publically documented. Bryan 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, what's going on? Much of the removed material was informative and hardly objectionable even from HE self. --Malyctenar 11:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also love to hear what's going on. GeneralPatton 13:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
|
