Talk:Dave Pelzer

Factual error in the Criticism section
This sections states: "...according to a reviewer in the The Guardian, who wonders if those who read the book "might, in fact, be paedophiles"." That quote from the Guardian article is referring to a completely different book so the last part of the sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.199.33 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Apparently his mother and father have died. Don't know about his brothers. His mother never got into serious trouble because child abuse laws were too 'weak' in the 70s. --130.161.135.31 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. she died in 1992 and her name is Catherine Roevera

Removed Controversy section
I removed the controversy section because it's controversy surrounding his book; it belongs not under his bio but under A Child Called It —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylert123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelzer's notability is entirely based on his book. Therefore the controversy belongs here as much as on the book article itself. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Controversy section is gone, sir. I really wish to see this reinstated---I've searched all the articles and talk pages of him and his books and found nothing regarding controversy save for vague statements on this article's introduction.  I only even got to this page because it was seemingly randomly suggested in the article for Anthony Godby Johnson.


 * After reading several articles about him, his stories sound highly suspect. There's quotes from his brothers claiming his books are false, and that he was highly energetic and a "spoiled brat".  Normally, I'd give no credence to mere testimony from one person, but considering that Dave Pelzer has responded to these allegations with blatant Ad hominem, calling his brother "semi-retarded" opens the door to skepticism.

AndarielHalo (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if someone would re-write the controversy section so that it makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.239.66 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Added. At the very least, we need to be careful in stating that his claims of abuse are just that, claims, that have never been verified by any legal process as far as I can tell. Jpatokal (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

3rd worst case in California?
Whoever expressed this opinion clearly overlooked Genie, resecued in California in 1970 and still living Genie (feral child) Althought Genie never wrote about her case of abuse, she should still be remebered for the tragedy that came amongst her!

Documentation
We all know this article is quite light on verifiable documentation of this case. To assist pig that, here is the list of people David thanks at the front of his book "Lost Boy". These names can be googled for information that could assist in verifying the details of this story. It should be noted, that the vast majority of David's story is told only by him and should be treated as a single source. If however any of these people have given interviews in verifiable, independent sources, that would be helpful. "To the teachers and staff who rescued me: Steven Ziegler, Athena Konstan, Joyce Woodworth, Janice Woods, Betty Howell, Peter Hansen, the school nurse of Thomas Edison Elementary School, and the Daly City police officer. To the angel of social services Ms Pamela Gold. To my foster parents: Aunt Mary, Rudy and Lilian Catanze, Michael and Joanne Nulls, Jody and Vera Jones, John and Linda Walsh. To those with a firm but gentle guiding hand: Gordon Hutchenson, Carl Miguel, Estelle O’Ryan, Dennis Tapley. To friends and mentors: David Howard, Paul Brazell, William D. Brazell, Sandy Marsh, Michael A. Marsh." Wjhonson 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually his mother died back in 1992 and his father is believed to have died between 1979 and 1982. The books do not state an exact date on his father's death. Also David stated his brothers were all treated perfect and never even hit. His brother Richard stated different. He insisted that all the boys were abused at one time or another but just not nearly as severe. he also stated he saw all his brothers being mistreated at times. David just got the worst of it while he got the second worst of itif you actully read the book then you'll see what dave REALLY went trough and sometimes you just cant make that up.

[to the above] If you read his other books it goes on to tell how he found out his brothers were beaten and neglected too, saying in the book "He was the lucky one." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.221.28 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-write May 1, 2007
I re-did the whole article based on the one semi-legit source I could find. I removed everything that was unsourced based on the rules for bios of living persons. I will keep watching this page to keep junk out. Anyone who would like to add something that is fully cited should feel free to do so. --Chuck Sirloin 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If he was kept away from the other family members, that would explain why he never once saw one of the other boys get hit. He was then taken into care. But in "A Man Named Dave", he states that in a meeting with his brother Russell when they were adults, he learned for the first time that the other brothers were subjected to abuse.

dave grew up to write seven bestsellers:a child called it;the lost boy;a man named dave,help yourself,help yourself for teens,the priveledge of youth,and moving forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.56 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased
This article is a bit biased. Phrases like "her sick games" take a leaning position on the subject.

I noticed that too, and I've corrected it and added information about Richard Pelzer's book. Graymornings (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

removed "advocate for children's rights"
I removed the attribute "advocate for children's rights" from the lead, since there is no documentation of that inline nor any discussion/mention of it within the article. Pelzer speaks and sells his books simultaneously -- this does not qualify as advocating children's rights; it's advocating his books. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

more info
more info is needed about the books, what they cover and his life. I have added some info but feel that the article does not have a neutral point-of-view. Mainly what's there is commenting on his books instead of actual descriptions of the content and the impact his book had in literature and society (making child abuse public on a wider scale). --South19 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Teacher said... (removed)
"One of his teachers said that Dave's experience was one of the worst child abuse cases in California at that time."

The source says: "My own hunch is that, substantially, he's telling the truth: there seems no reason to dispute the assertion by his former teacher that at the time Pelzer was removed from his mother, his was the third worst case of child abuse on record in the state of California. (No charges were ever brought, however, and it is left unclear on what terms he was removed; his mother appears to have had the right to see him if she wanted.)"

Our sentence is irredeemably vague, but the source is not much better. We don't know who this former teacher is and why they would have knowledge of every case of child abuse on record in California. I would have thought that there were many cases of child abuse that resulted in death in a state as populous as California. Possibly this is in the book, and can then be cited to the book, but to attribute it to a random teacher, and cite this Guardian text as a reference seems unsupportable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018
Remove the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Abuse" section which is a says: "A Brother's Journey." It is an incomplete sentence. 71.183.176.48 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  04:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019
Spelling mistake in the third paragraph of the 'Abuse' section. 'She dank at least 30 liters of vodka a week.' Dank should be drank.
 * Done. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Another request: the last bit about the funeral has horrible punctuation such as no period between the end of one sentence and another and "no one at the funeral" written as "Noone at the funeral."--32.214.195.155 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1
— Assignment last updated by RAT1981 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023
Current wording: One of Pelzer's brothers, Richard B. Pelzer, published his own autobiography, A Brother's Journey, that detailed his experiences. Paraphrased, Pelzer said in the afterword of his book that his objectives for his story was to show how a parent can become abusive and how the human spirit can triumph and survive

Because both men are Pelzer, it is unclear which Pelzer is the subject of the second sentence. I suggest to add the correct first name in the second sentence (or otherwise rewrite for clarity) Jacketck (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Article quality is too low to justify locking, needs massive overhaul
Example:

"Throughout the rest of his life, he somewhat healed from the abuse but will never forget what he had been through." The tone, grammar, and substance of the claim are highly inappropriate and should have been addressed before the article was mysteriously locked.

Also, counterpoints to Pelzer's claims of abuse are poorly integrated. The article clearly takes the stance that his narrative is the authoritative one, but no explanation is given as to why, other than that his brother is "semi-retarded," an inclusion that seems more like offensive gossip from a dysfunctional family than anything illuminating for readers. NPOV isn't about including criticism as a token gesture of good faith, it's about not arbitrarily taking sides when the available evidence doesn't warrant it. This is definitely not NPOV.

If there is no evidence that Pelzer's story is factual, the article needs to be revised so as to discuss allegations, not supposed facts regarding those who are long dead. If there is such evidence, it should be front and center.

Next time, before protecting an article from vandalism, make sure you are up to the task of not damaging it yourself. ;) 2603:7081:1603:A300:65F7:6E1F:C966:FE1E (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Wes sideman (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article should not be locked, it needs significant editing which is being prevented by the lock. 80.2.85.177 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)