User talk:WCFrancis/Archive07

Harlan and Gabe comment

Posted on Talk page for Harlan Ellison:

• I agree stongly with Codemonkey that this rumor-mongering is totally out of place if Wikimedia is serious about being a real encyclopedia. It is highly POV (It was worse before the mention of Ellison's comments) reporting of a minor incident. I happen to believe Harlan's version. Giving weight to a rant posted on the internet by someone who either could not make the effort to even spell "Harlan" right in his posting or thought it would be a cute insult to spell it incorrectly is as inappropriate here as the personal attacks in that rant would be. Keeping it here weakens Wikipedia. If it were to result in an edit war, then page protection would be in order.WCFrancis 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what it said.

"On September 25, 2005 Ellison made a perceived slight to Mike "Gabe" Krahulik of Penny Arcade at the 7th Foolscap science fiction convention. Krahulik described his version of the encounter on his web site, including an urban legend connected to Ellison. [1] The urban legend has been discounted by snopes. [2] Ellison posted a response on his own website, claiming he never intended to insult. [3][4]"

I just removed this. We'll see what happens. WCFrancis 03:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

More: From the con chair on the alleged incident.

Hank Graham <foolscap@comcast.net>

Seattle, WA - Tuesday, September 27 2005 14:18:9 ANOTHER word from the chair *sigh*

Harlan didn't put on a hat because Harlan wasn't provided with a hat. It was A JOKE. We had cheap, silly-looking jester's caps for Gabe & Tycho, and a legal pad (another type of "foolscap," for those of you who didn't know) for Harlan.

I think Harlan was mildly amused by this nonsense, as he was meant to be. (And if he wasn't, I expect he'll let me know.) The look on his face while I was handing out the hats was the setup that made the payoff worthwhile. In any event, he gave a mild smile when he saw the paper, and realized that no, I was not going to try to get him to wear a silly hat.

Gabe wasn't trying to needle Harlan when he asked if Harlan would like to wear one, I think, although it may have been perceived that way.

Due to some scheduling problems, we were not able to have Gabe & Tycho around the convention as we'd have liked. That's actually part of the reason we ended up overworking Harlan.

Among the missed opportunities there, I had hoped to have panels where all of our GOH's could meet. Gabe and Harlan are a lot more similar than they are different, and they share a lightning-fast wit I don't have, and have always envied.

They also share a basic quality of being genuinely nice guys who try to do the right thing. You can see that with Harlan's insistence to keep working the programming schedule he'd been presented, because he's a professional and he didn't want to disappoint anyone. You can also see it with Gabe & Tycho, who couldn't participate fully due to scheduling problems, and so turned down all payment for their appearance at Foolscap this weekend.

To the many partisans dismissing the works of either Harlan or Gabe and Tycho, my answer is that you should go look at what you're missing.

[5] WCFrancis 04:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just finished reading a large portion of the shitstorm on Unca Harlan's Art Deco Dining Pavilion of trolls and people bashing and defending Harlan. <sarcasm>Another shining example of what the internet is doing for society</sarcasm>. `WCFrancis 05:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For more see below. WCFrancis 04:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Text of Ellison's Comments

The following was entered on the article on Harlan Ellison and soon removed. I put it on the Talk:Harlan Ellison page. Here it is again. WCFrancis 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This version was captured directly from Ellison Webderland.WCFrancis 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

HARLAN ELLISON

- Tuesday, December 6 2005 13:11:44

WIKIPEDIA PUSTULANT

Let me urge you to go to the link Mark O. has posted re Wikipedia, just previous to this. My fervent 2 cents (and with all this much-vaunted hossanah'ing of PCs, and how they'll make us a better species, how come the fuckin' things don't have a "cents" sign as did the cheesiest typewriter Back In The Day?), my two cents is entered YET AGAIN FOR THE ELEVENTH TIME, that the site, the idea, the concept, the execution, the content of the Wikipedia site is simply unadorned crap.

Let me stress thst. CRAP. Not just useless for reference if you give even the smallest shit about truth or accuracy or fairness or being courant, but DANGEROUS and HURTFUL CRAP that balms the egos of those whose idle hours compelled them to create this cesspool in the first place, in blind denial of the idiocy of the opening concept.

It is a stupid idea, deifying the urban myths and illogical personal twitches of anonymous know-nothings. It is the raising to the level of notice, the blathering and meanness of those who formerly had an adequate and appropriate soapbox on the corner, but who now have the aid and abettment of worldwide broadcasting. It is the enabling of half-witted and jejeune autodidacts who truly believe every paranoid conspiracy opinion they foam up in their brain-basin is worthy of dissemination, and is as "valuable" as real facts and Britannica-researched real information.

The Siegenthaler situation exactly parallels mine own, EVEN AFTER I played their silly little game and spoke to the several creators of the site personally, and then spent an hour or so revising and submitting an accurate (evenhanded, non-ax-honing) revision...which lasted for about an hour till the anonymous brigands formerly of Enemies of Ellison realized their long-posted scurrilous CRAP had been deleted...and they just punched in the previous CRAP all over again. And the Wizards of Wikipedia giggled, shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, see, that's the idea of Wikipedia. Nothing is permanent."

NOTHING IS PERMANENT???!!!!!!???????

gEEZus bleedin' whatever, this flies in the face of every basic instinct of the human race. The Great Wall of China, the Tower of Babel, the Great Library of Alexandria, the World Trade Towers, the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, all of Shakespeare's and Faulkner's and Shirley Jackson's writings, the begetting of children ... TO LAST, TO BE PERMANENT (even in the face of the futility of "eternal" permanence)(to defy death and the eroding sands of time, to leave a mark, to have BEEN HERE), to create that which does not slip and slide and fall away beneath our feet. To be permanent, as best it can be so.

IMpermanence = chaos.

Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

Those who are obsessed with disseminating "Chinese Whispers," who enjoy "Playing Telephone," who batten on creating gossip and rumor and the kind of paralogical CRAP that is as real as the "little fuck" anecdote allegedly about me, that Phil Klass cobbled up from a creaky old vaudeville-cum-Joe Miller Jokebook shtick, decades ago...that still lives on...

Those pus-bags will revel in using CRAP SITES like Wikipedia, and the even more egregious ancillary-sites that reproduce the CRAP without checking, thus spreading obscurantism and illiteracy further and further...

Those schmucks will not go away. But YOU PEOPLE have some very laudable degree of common sense. So stop blathering about "we should do this" and "we should do that" and lamenting what a nasty business this is. Because short of finding each and every one of these people (and who the hell knows how many that might be, on a million different topics) and putting a Glock to their head, and festooning the wall behind them with strawberry gliomas, even RUMINATING about buying into this set-up is no more than annoying and aggravating.

So unless you can hack your way in, to destroy Wikipedia from the tap root up, give it a pass, I beg you...give it a rest!

In sympathy with John Siegenthaler's father,

Yr. pal, Harlan

(P.S.: You have my permission to disseminate this panegyric, not least to the mavens at Wikipedia. Let THEM roil for a while.)

Reposted by WCFrancis 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When I really get fed up with the crap I may replace "Facts are stubborn" in my sig with "Harlan is right".

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Harlan Ellison

Hello again! Thank you for your apology and note; I appreciate your follow-up. No problem, and I also regret if I was curt in replying.

While it may be true that I sometimes have difficulty getting away from a keyboard :), I've also worked both at a public library and as a research assistant at university, so your comments were (unintentionally) particularly pointed. Besides: I've been known to throw off a flippant comment and to shake the tree now and then ... In any event, I will read the story. Thanks again, and take care! E Pluribus Anthony 04:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The exchange on the talk page follows, to put the above in context: ...

Agreed! That title reminds me of The Matrix, when Smith removes Neo's mouth on the spot, but he still 'screams' ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the story. They have this place called a library. If you really can't get away from the keyboard you can buy a book from Amazon.com. I don't recall what collection it's in, but do a little research. WCFrancis 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Case in point – your first sentence on its own would've been just fine. And your sarcasm and emphasis is necessary ... because? There are things called manners and respect. If you cannot comment rationally or civilly, don't. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to apologize for the sarcasm, which was out of line. I also failed to research it before opening my mouth keyboard. The story is available on the Sci-Fi.com site, with permission, I'm sure. The link is available at the end of the article I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. I immediately thought of the story when I saw the scene you mentioned and thought that it might be deliberate homage. I do recommend the story highly. I am embarassed by my sarcasm and my failure to check facts. WCFrancis 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Harlan

Pointless reference to Sexual Behavior in 1962

Following copied after entering my response 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Harlan's article refers to the incident as "...the single kinkiest sexual encounter I ever had."

Removed the following which had no place and no reason to be in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article and which could be taken as a personal attack:

Account of kinky sexual liaison in 1962

In 1978 Harlan Ellison recounted as if telling a factual story how in 1962 he had ended a consensual sexual encounter, after tying his partner in the living-room of her parents' house so that she was naked and unable to move or release herself, by leaving her there to be discovered by her parents. The veracity of his own account cannot be determined; it resembles a common urban legend.

Also changed subtitle that may have been legally actionable and was undoubtedly a personal attack. It was put up 22 November 2006, reverted 28 November 2006, and has been there until now. Look for this abuse to return soon.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The US Federal government's definition of sexual assault includes "inappropriate touching" (see [6]) Ellison's sexual assault on Willis at the Hugo Awards is thoroughly documented to an unusual extent for any encyclopedia: to use correct terminology for an event that is completely verifiable is certainly not actionable.

The first of the 'Three Most Important Things' anecdote was retitled by an anon editor who objected to having Ellison's self-described behavior referred to as 'sexual assault'. I put it back in because it is sourced as well as any of the other controversies and is certainly notable: Ellison not only published the anecdote he told, but is reported to have recounted it several times at conventions. Yonmei 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Provided it is from a reliable sourced (it is) and we make it clear it's veracity is uncertain (we do) there are only two other issues. Is it sufficiently noteable (appears to be but can't say for sure) and is it documented as controversial (no clear info on this)? The fact that you and I may think it is controversial is irrelevant if it isn't documented as controversial. Given it's noteability, there might be merit to include it somewhere else if it isn't documented as controversial but not in the controversies section Nil Einne 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Will try to find documentation of controversy: what controversy I'm aware of occurred exclusively in fandom, which tends not to be documented up to Wikipedia standards. Yonmei 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted portion had nothing to do with Connie Willis incident. It was the quoted section from his essay. Pointless, with a title that amounts to a personal attack. It came back. It has been removed again. Please do not turn this into an edit war, but consider why you feel the need to hate Mr. Ellison and to continual find ways to attack him in an encyclopedia.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember: assume good faith. Accusations that wiki editors include information in biographies based on personal animosity towards the subject, is hardly an assumption of good faith. This anecdote is directly sourced to Ellison: it may or may not to be true, but not only did he repeat it at several conventions, he also published it under his own name as something he had done. It is therefore quite literally a self-incriminating account of a sexual assault Ellison carried out, or said he did, in 1962. The argument has been made that this is "not controversial", and therefore ought to be under a different section: I cannot, however, see any good reason to remove it altogether: though as you will see other anecdotes that are not sourced have been removed. Yonmei 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can still see no reason that this incident should even be in an "encyclopedia", even a self-labeled one. Use of the inflammatory label "sexual assault" appears to meet standard of personal attack, and if it cannot be supported in its legal meaning, it is actionable.

I also do not see why that particular terminology is so important when there are other terms that would not look like personal attack could easily be substituted. The insistance on the use of the term assult is my reason for not being able to assume good faith. (Aside: "assume good faith" is a principle to allow discussion regarding editorial choices, not to allow anyone to put anything in just because they are acting in "good faith".)

I still contend that, regardless of terminology, inclusion is pointless and creates an interruption to the flow of the article, which is already choppy and in need of a true editor.

Note also that I predicted this edit skirmish would happen. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)