Talk:Jack Vance/Archive 2

Rewrite and expansion of the VIE section
As I've said before, I have no horse in this race (or irons in this particular fire, or any other dumb metaphor you can think of). I am totally disinterested in the VIE controversy (not UNinterested, DISinterested). It seems to be to have been an enormous waste for time for a lot of talented people who could have been directing their energies elsewhere. I have now rewritten the VIE section, based on what seems to be non-biased, easily verified facts, not wild claims, speculations, gossip, innuendo, or personal opinion. I think that a paragraph about major edition such as this obviously belongs in a long article about a major writer -- years from now, as someone has pointed out during this discussion, this will have become the standarized edition to which all future academics will refer. Maybe I've made some mistakes in what I've written -- if so, please correct them. But otherwise, I think it ought to be left more or less as it is. Are there other, verifiable facts that all also PERTINENT to be added to it? Fine. Add them. But let's stop all the back and forth arguments that have wasted so much time and space up till now. Hayford Peirce 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. I must note that I never objected to the factual info about VIE per se; my objection is all about using this Wikipage as a promotional hype vehicle. --Arvin Sloane 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These principles sound quite reasonable. However, the VIE section now has a subtle negative tone, using words like "purported", which I find puzzling. At the very worst, this undertaking can only be a benefit to those who enjoy Jack Vance's work. Why not adopt at least a neutral tone? For example, the claim of using original manuscripts is not "purported" but is easily verified by reference to public materials. The verification itself does not belong in the Wikipedia page. Otherwise, you may as well call Jack Vance the purported author of purportedly published works, &tc.--65.211.196.130 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why lie about the VIE? What is being gained, and by whom?
 * The VIE is not an integral edition of all of Vance's speculative works, it is an edition of all his work, which has been published as 'mystery', 'fantasy' and 'science fiction'.
 * Paul, sometimes I wonder if you understand simple English? I don't say this to insult you -- I mean it literally: you frequently bring up stuff that indicates, at least to me, that you are not tracking what other people have written.  The VIE is NOT an edition of "all his work".  You yourself have written that it contains his fantasy and science-fiction PLUS the 3 Ellery Queens.  This indicates to me that the OTHER 11 mysteries (or however many there were) were not included.
 * If I don’t understand English I am hardly in a position to realize it. Be this as it may, the VIE is, without any doubt, an edition of ALL Vance’s work, including those parts of it which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be classified as speculative, such as ‘Bird Island’, or the ‘Joe Bain’ mysteries (unless you have redefined the word speculative to mean fiction, an act to insure my inability to understand English). As for the ‘Ellery Queen’ volume, it is VIE volume number ‘14 bis’. Now, perhaps you yourself fail to understand English properly? I do not say this to insult you, but all is a fairly simple word, which I use exclusively in its traditional meaning without inventing any new meanings for it. In any case, the least effort of research, such as on Foreverness, would have revealed to the ignorant or the dubious that, even not counting the 3 novels in volume ‘14 bis’, VIE volumes 10 through 14 contain 11 mystery novels.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The VIE was not put together by Vance enthusiasts, it was accomplished under the aeges of the author himself, with a great deal of input from Norma Vance as well. It was not put together but created with system and deliberation, with a total and public record of what it has done currently avalable on the internet.
 * Once again, simple English. Being published under the aegis of Jack is meaningless.  It was, literally, put together by "Vance enthusiastics".  "Put together" means created with "system and deliberation."
 * Hayford, sometimes I wonder if you understand the basic nuances of English? I don’t say this to insult you--I mean it literally; you are failing to perceive the derogatory tone you use here (and everywhere else, as far as I can see). Put together, in the context of your phrase, has a connotation of slapdash amateurism, implying the opposite of system and deliberation. As for the aegis of Jack Vance, this by no means meaningless! To wit; nothing was done editorially by the VIE without the author’s instructions and accord, which is a crucial guarantee of the approach and result of VIE editorial work.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The VIE does not present original manuscripts as Vance first submitted them for publication, it uses the texts Vance wanted us to use, including versions revised by himself, including revissions exclusive to the VIE. The original publications are sometimes the best, and sometimes not. The VIE, at Vance's direction, uses the best versions in various cases, and makes as many corrections from manuscript or at Vance's express direction, as possible. The errors and editorial changes did not later show up but, as mentioned above, were often present, to one degree or another in original publications. They were corrected in the VIE not according to the editors of the Vance Integral Edition but according to Jack Vance himself, with a public record of what was done, avalable at Foreverness, a link to which is being blocked!
 * You are making petty "distinctions without a difference" as the lawyers say. Your objections are meaningless.
 * Do you mean to inform me that there is no difference between presenting original manuscripts as Vance first submitted them for publication and what the VIE actually did? This difference, it seems to me, is not a distinction without difference, nor yet meaningless. Your failure to perceive it seems peculiar.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, what, exactly, is the objection to recounting the VIE is a neutral manner? I have proposed several texts, and here is another The work of Vance has been published in an integral edition, under the author's aeges, with the texts and titles preferred by the author..
 * Paul, let me put it to you so that perhaps you can finally understand it. I am a professional writer.  People actually pay me money to write words for them.  I am also a highly experienced copy-editor of my own work and that of others.  Moreover, I love correct word usage and English styling and grammar.  In short, I know a LOT about words and how to use them.  I also have NO feeling about the VIE one way or another, as I have tried to tell you over and over.  I have rewritten the VIE in the most neutral, objective, NPOV manner that is possible to do so.  RLetson is ALSO a professional writer who shares the same skills and mindsets as me.  He has vetted my copy and found it acceptable.  You, Paul, however, based on everything I have seen that you have written, have difficulties both in communicating in simple, correct English AND in presenting a NPOV about this VIE.  For this reason, I think that the current version of the VIE will have to stand.  It is both factual and NPOV.  If you want to add NPOV new material that is relevant to the article, please do so.  It will be copy-edited to bring it up to correct usage but it will be left there.  If, on the other hand, it is more POV, self-publicizing polemicism, then it will be ruthlessly edited.  I am sorry to have to write to you in such terms, but you have become extremely tiresome to everyone else in this particular sphere of interest with your obsessive ramblings.  Would you PLEASE either learn the elements of NPOV or just leave the article alone.  I am still trying hard to be completely neutral about this section but it is increasingly difficult.  I, RLetson, and others have never participated in ANY of the controversy that apparently attends the VIE -- all we want to do is create an objective, interesting, well-written Vance article that is also NPOV and factually correct.  As some point all the info that is needed to provide this will have been put into the article, edited, polished, vetted, and generally agreed upon by the contributors.  You are certainly not helping this proces.... Hayford Peirce 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! At last I understand. Thank you for the clear explanation; in short I am a worm who ought to disappear (have I understood English in this case?) As for your vaunted neutrality and objectivity, I’ll leave others to judge it.--PaulRhoads 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As for this, It seems to be to have been an enormous waste for time for a lot of talented people who could have been directing their energies elsewhere, if it does not fall into the catagory of speculation, gossip, innuendo and personal opinion my understanding of these terms is falty.--PaulRhoads 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hayford, I thought I would never forgive you for how you've dealt with my hero, Baron Bodissey, but after this I shall reconsider. Keep up your good works! --Arvin Sloane 05:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack and the iPod
Dave Alexander had dinner with Jack a month or so ago and the conversation went like this: Dave: "Jack, did you know that you invented the iPod?" Jack: "I did?" Dave: "In one of the Cadwal Chronicle books the hero checks into a hotel and the desk clerk gives him an iPod-like device that he attaches to his ear and it's already programmed with suitable music." Jack: "Nonsense! I never wrote anything like that!" Dave: "I'll find it for you." Dave was certain that it was in one of the first two books of the Cadwal series but was unable to find it. So it must (according to him) be in the third one, Throy. But neither of us can find our copies of the book. Can anyone here verify Dave's assertion? If so, maybe a sentence or so to this effect could be stuck in the article. Hayford Peirce 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You won't find it in Cadwal Chronicles, I believe. It's in "Maske: Thaery." This shoulder-worn device, pre-programmed with all kinds of mood-suitable musak ("chotz," if I remember correctly), is given to Jubal Droad (and to all other visitors, mandatorily) on the planet Eiselbar. Jack's digression on Eiselbar's commercial music and musicology (in Glossary at the end of this book) is remarkable and visionary. Arvin Sloane 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks.  I've got Maske: Thaery.  But I'm also the only guy in the world without an iPod.  Do you think that Jack's early version of it is notable enough to be mentioned in his article? Hayford Peirce 22:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Trust me, Mr. Peirce, you're not the only one. I hate "wearing" music, and never owned iPod. If an urge to listen to something comes upon me, which isn't often (most performances are substandard), I make an audiophiliac ritual out of it. And no, I don't think iPod deserves mentioning on Jack's page; I also regret that computer games sneaked their way into Vance's realm. Just ordered your "Thirteenth Majestral," I'd like to see what's in it -- the unspeakable baron is one of my favorite authors. Arvin Sloane 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting fact, but it would also fall under No original research. Of course, if a reliable source has mentioned this ipod fact before, then it could be included. Garion96 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious, Garion96, but why your interest in this page, and more importantly, why your need to play hall monitor? Most of us here have actually dealt with Jack Vance personally in one way, shape or another. Call it original research, if you will, but your need to play stickler bureaucrat is annoying. This particular page on Wikipedia has generated enough contention without some interested bystander with a guideline fetishism coming in and playing child minder. Peter1968 11:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article and it's talk need a child minder. :) But seriously, I really enjoy the books of Jack Vance and I think he deserves a great (or at least a good) article. I also think this article is not even close to that yet. All the policies I mentioned are core policies of wikipedia, not just guidelines. Perhaps the fact that most of you here have dealt with Jack Vance personally makes it harder for you to make this article. For instance, from dealing with Jack Vance you might know the truth of a lot of things, but it has to be verifiable, to play stickler bureacrat again, read this for more info on that. Garion96 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very much aware of Wikipedia's "core policies" as you put them. I've been an editor here for some time. I'm also very much aware that 99% of everything that occurs on this site happens due consensus and it is all very mutable. Maybe this article does need a minder etc, but who is to say it should be you, Garion96? That's my point. Peter1968 15:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you see me removing all the stuff from the article I object too? Than why the reminder about consensus? I use this talk page to discuss things I think are important and perhaps reach a consensus about it. Is that so bad? You might not agree with what I say, but that's something else. I really don't see myself as a minder, those were your words. Garion96 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also -- if one wanted to include mention of Ipod-like devices -- the "reliable source" would be the Vance novel in question, would it not? But there is no need to mention neither Ipods nor computer games in my opinion. The RPG connection, however, is pertinent and is indeed mentioned obversely in the WP Gygax entry.


 * As I see it, the current article, if not 100% perfect, is quite impartial and fact-oriented. Jack's not-so-exciting biography is what it is: one could add more details, probably, but there is no clearly objectionable material in it. As to the work overview, most of the statements there are true and can be supported by endless quotations, links, and footnotes — which wouldn't make the article more readable. Perhaps, Garion96 would be so kind as to mention specifically, what ignites his bureaucratic ire, and how this transgression should be made more "verifiable"? Arvin Sloane 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I would like of course, is an article like the Robert A. Heinlein article. A (close enough for comparison) similar writer. But yes, I like sources and I like notes. I think it makes for a better article. See also some points I mentioned before here. Garion96 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heinlein article is definitely overloaded with citations, and constitutes a very disappointing reading. It also contains referrals to extremely dubious points of view ("Starship Troopers" being a fascist work, etc.). There must be a measure in all things, including application of laws, rules, and policies. Otherwise, human civilization and life on this planet would become impossible. Let me give you an example. A Wikipedia article on Gene Wolfe contains the following quotation from O'Leary: "Gene Wolfe is the best writer alive. Period." According to Wikipedia policies, since this idiocy can be verified as a published utterance coming from a verifiable and "reputable" source (O'Leary happens to be a writer), it has a place in the article. According to same policies, the very reasonable assertion that Jack's "Lyonesse" trilogy is considered by many as being among the best in the fantasy genre, needs "citation." BS. Even if you, personally, don't think that "Lyonesse" is among the best fantasy works, it wouldn't change the true and verifiable fact that many people think so. I do, and hereby confirm it. On the other hand, very few people would agree that Gene Wolfe is "the best writer alive, period." Making this assertion a part of Wikipedia article on the basis that it is "quotable" and "verifiable" is using the rules of the game to defeat the game itself. And that is what many people do here: being denied their point of view once or twice on Wikipedia page, they pass their time lurking and catching all kinds of instances where people say very reasonable, obvious things without bothering to clutter the text with footnotes and links, and annoy these people to satisfy their personal grudge. Don't. Please, allow Jack Vance's Wikipedia page to be somewhat deserving Jack's taste and talent: reasonable, devoid of ass-polishing. Arvin Sloane 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the Lyonesse example, I like to know which writers/critics think Lyonesse is among the best in the fantasy genre and why. And perhaps some writers/critics who don't agree with that. That I might think Lyonesse is the best is not important for the article. I also would like to know where and in what context Poul Anderson called Vance the greatest living American writer in science fiction. Many of you are quite experts in Vance, so I assume and hope you have the sources for that. FWIW, I agree with you on the Gene Wolfe example. See also here. To end this reponse with a bureaucrat note. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You would like to know, Garion? Once again, who are you? See, this is the thing. You've come in here like a backyard lawyer and insisted "you" want changes. So, my naturally and equally arrogant question in response is: who are "you" to ask for that? What makes you a more important Wikipedia editor than me or RLetson, Hayford or any of us here? I'm with Arvin Sloane here. If you wanted to apply Wikipedia's policies universally, then nearly every article written here would fail. Seriously.
 * A lot of the answers you ask for could be answered quite well by Googling or visiting your local library. Since you're the one who insists on dotting all the i's here, feel free to do so, and not insist that we do it for you. Peter1968 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is the thing. I encountered this article and I asked for sources (or would like to know) . Not insisted that I "want" changes. What I asked for can be ignored or dismissed, I don't mind although of course I don't agree. The fact is that for you (the editors currently working on the article) it would propably be quite easy to find sources (perhaps I am wrong there) since you seem to be quite experts on Vance. While for me it probably would be more difficult. But don't worry, you win. Right now I don't have the time, patience and easy access to a library which could provide answers to do research to this article. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then; as you can see from another talk article, we're on the job re: sourcing praise and other aspects of Vance. Natually, you and any other Wikipedia editor is quite welcome to help. I wasn't trying to offend, but your attitude and methods came across as a case of "important person syndrome" and that does rub many the wrong way. Still, that's all behind us and we'll move on with the effort of making this a definitive Vance reference. Peter1968 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving this page, or most of it
This page has now become *very* long. And most of the vituperative issues seem to have been settled. I think that probably everything except the last two or three sections should be archived. IN THEIR ENTIRETY, I might add: this is the whole point of archives -- nothing is deleted! Does anyone here know how to do it? I've looked at some archives for other discussions and it looks as if a simple is stuck at the top of the designated area. If no one else here has more expertise in this than I do, I'll give it a go. Hayford Peirce 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Arvin Sloane 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive achieved
I think I've managed to create an archive for all of the earlier discussions. Click on the link at the top of this page. Please remember: nothing on the Archive page should be edited -- it is now part of the historical record, for good or for bad.... Hayford Peirce 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

High praise citations
It's asking for citations in regards to the praise Vance has received from peers and the press. Would blurb praise of the cover of books suffice? There's quite a bit of it, from people like Frank Herbert and Robert Silverberg, et al. What may be a self-evident fact to some folks isn't to the fine print readers around here, so we may have to get to work on sourcing some of Vance's praise. It won't be hard. Peter1968 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I had a long blurb from a Washington Post review on the back of one of Jack's books, in which his style was discussed -- it would have been a very useful "reliable" source. But I looked through all of my JV books and couldn't find it.  Rats!  I'll keep looking.  What about, let's say, an introduction by Tim Underwood in one of his limited editions of a JV book.  That's verifiable.  But it's also a source writing about a book he's publishing.... Hayford Peirce 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: If one wants to spice up, say, the lead section with some verifiable praise that really suggests Jack's place in the SF world, one place to start is the Cunningham Jack Vance: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography, which has some of the "writer's writer" reactions from (among others) Gene Wolfe. There have also been various comments from Bob Silverberg through the years, including an intro to the Gregg Press edition of Eyes of the Overworld (unfortunately very hard to find, but I think it's reprinted in Reflections and Refractions, Underwood Books, Grass Valley, California, 1997. ISBN: 1-887424-22-9). [Slight pause for Googling.] Here's another source, dug out of The Jack Vance Information Archive: "Nebula Awards 32, edited by Jack Dann (Harcourt Brace, 1998), contains Grand Master tributes to Jack Vance by Robert Silverberg and Terry Dowling." And so on. If it were one of my own pieces, I'd keep it to a minimum--X writers have declared JV to be an inspiration, SFWA named him a Grand Master, and so on. RLetson 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I find the Cunningham volume of dubious value. It contains a number of pieces by authors (notably Dan Simmons) who clearly have little or no familiarity with the work of Jack Vance. Baphomet V 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall we get back to work?
I've just looked back at the last few topics in the now-archived discussion page and think maybe it's time to go back to working on the article instead of each other. I suggest a few jobs small and large:

Cleanup: Cut the "Trivia" and "Publication" sections--the former really is trivial, and the latter belongs (suitably shortened) in the bio. Agreement on this?

The big "Overview" section needs to be subdivided (by period, preferably) and reorganized. Probably a separate "themes" topic that identifies patterns and motifs (revenge, bildungsroman, the ramble) as well as philosophical and political issues. Much useful material is already in the section, but it could be fuller and would benefit from some sort of chronological and/or topical framework.

The genre question: This has been a stone in my shoe for some time. While Jack has certainly squirms any time anyone applies a category to him, the statement that "his work fits [genre categories] inexactly" cannot be defended by anyone (pace Paul Rhoads) who knows the work and the various genres. What, pray tell, do you call a narrative that includes sorcerers, spells, demons, and other supernatural machineries? That's fantasy, folks. And stories that portray star travel in a far future, human-settled galaxy are science fiction; and contemporary-setting stories in which someone solves a murder are mysteries. So we can state that Jack doesn't like to categorize his work, but we cannot ignore the fact that the world sees his work as belonging to those genres.

VIE: Oy, such fuss over this! The existence of a standard edition of a genre writer's works is significant, particularly given the voluntary/noncommercial nature of the project and the fact that the texts established for the edition are intended to become the standards for future commercial editions and translations of Vance. This is a pretty unusual situation. And Wiki protocols ought to assure that even if some interested party (say, the editor-in-chief) has a hand in writing the account, there are enough other editors and enough public info about the VIE available (a website, a project journal) to assure a reasonably objective account. The section as it stands now looks fine to me, neither outsize nor POV. (Though I do see one tiny copy-edit I'd make: "44 hardback volumes" for "44 volumes of hardbacks.")

Sources: Between the items in the Books About Vance section and various standard reference works (Clute & Nicholls, Dictionary of Literary Biography [an entry written by yr. obt. svt.], Survey of Science Fiction Literature, Survey of Modern Fantasy Literaure), just about all the materials needed for an "Overview" makeover are available. We do not have to make this stuff up. If we want evaluative statements, they're out there. If we want a sense of important themes and motifs, they're out there, too. The critics and scholars have done the heavy lifting--all we need to do is choose the appropriate bits. RLetson 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like you've done a masterful summing up of how it should be rearranged. I particularly like your comments about Jack's categories of works. No matter what *he* thinks about his stuff, everyone else agrees that he writes fantasies, science-fiction (which may then fall into a couple of different sub-genres, if you will), and mysteries.  As you say, there's nothing mysterious about that at all.  As far as Jack's opinion is concerned, that's like K. Vonnegut loudly, bitterly, and indignantly denying that he ever even *conceived* of writing anything remotely resembling science fiction.  Sigh.  It must be the Clown-Who-Wants-To-Play-Hamlet syndrome.  I gotta say, however, that in all the years that Jack and I exchanged several million words over red wine and/or beer I never *once* heard him lament his widely perceived status.  Maybe he knew I'd laugh at him.  Or maybe he appreciated the fact that I liked his mysteries so much when they had been essentially ignored by the reading public. Hayford Peirce 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally don't have anything against RLetson's proposals, though I would prefer to go very gently about the "Overview" section, which, IMO, is reasonable and passable. Perhaps, it would suffice to add some footnotes and/or links to the sources, rather than to embark upon fixing something that obviously works. Arvin Sloane 05:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the gentlest of writers, but that section reads like it was written by a committee (which of course it was). Why, for example, start by mentioning the mysteries when the first published work is fantasy and SF? (Especially when there is an "As Mystery Writer" section right below.) And while the topics addressed in the "Characteristics" subsection are pretty much the ones that most commentators address, the presentation is rather miscellaneous and includes rather more admiring POV language than is probably good for a Wiki entry--for example, "exquisite and bone-dry ironic language and his rich evocation—often in a few well-chosen words. . . ." I have no argument with the sentiment, but it's perhaps better to let some other, published commentator (or better yet, commentators) express it--there is certainly no shortage of appreciations of JV's style among his colleagues. Much that is here can be preserved, but it deserves a stronger framework (chronological is easiest) and a bit of toning down. RLetson 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * RLetson: Give it a try (if there's enough time on your hands), and show us how you want it to read. I agree that structurally it leaves much to be desired. I disagree with the notion that anything arbitrarily interpreted as "a point of view" has no place in Wikipedia. If a certain observation (like the innocent sample you've quoted) doesn't draw any objections, then it pretty much reflects a consensus, and ceases to be that frightful bogey, a "POV." Personally, I have very little respect for "published commentators," as opposed to the sincere and reasonable appreciation of a writer by his incognito admirers. Don't forget, what substance invariably floats on top (that is, gets "published" in the first place) in turbid waters of our society. Jack, for one, never forgets his carpenter's corns. Arvin Sloane 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two references to Gygax and his RPG in the article. One should suffice. Why not delete the sentence "Some of Vance’s fantasies such as "The Dying Earth" are a primary source for the roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons, at least according to one of the creators, Gary Gygax." from the overview and keep the one under the "Trivia" heading as is. The rest of the Trivia stuff about the Demon Princes/Treesong's address could preferably be scrapped. The Demon Princes have their own, rather substantial, WP entry and need not be described here.


 * I removed the two trivia about demon princes and Treesong adress. I also tried to merge both mentions of the RPG but it was reverted and it's back in the trivia section now. Isn't it better to have that info in the section "Vance’s Work: An Overview" instead of a seperate trivia section? Also, perhaps it simpy could be moved to The Dying Earth? Garion96 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree--in fact, I'd get rid of the trivia section altogether, D&D reference and all. That's why it's called "trivia." Let the games people chase the sources of spells in the appropriate entries; it adds nothing to my understanding of JV. RLetson 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, find it significant that Vance has had an impact in the RPG world but this mention doesn't belong in "Vance's work: an overview" section. But if one keeps the section "Books emulating Vance", the RPG connection is as valid in my opinion. Whether there is a section called "Trivia" or not doesn't matter but I'm not scared of the word. --Tetragruppasum 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to Foreverness
There is currently a link to the Foreverness site in the list of external links. As Foreverness is primarily a repository for Paul Rhoads's extensive writings on politics and religion, is not officially associated with either the VIE or Jack Vance himself, and contains potentially actionable libelous material, I suggest this link should be removed. Also note that the official policy on the Jack Vance Message Board is not to allow links to Foreverness, on legal grounds. See http://p078.ezboard.com/fjackvanceezboarddiscussion.showMessage?topicID=135.topic and note particularly the statement of Ed Winskill, the VIE treasurer. Baphomet V 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Will this nonsense ever die down? I'm not a particular fan of Mr. Rhoads's editorializing, but to call Foreverness "primarily" dedicated to it is more than a bit of an exaggeration--even Mike Berro (of the JVMB) seems only really upset at the contents of Extant. I don't know (yet) exactly what the objectionable material is, but it sure would be nice to be able to point to the Cosmopolis archive, which includes, along with more Rhoads opinion pieces than most folk would probably care to ingest, some useful and even unique Vanceana. But if the questionable can't be disentangled from the useful, I suppose we have to go without the whole site. Drat. RLetson 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mike Berro is not up-set about Extant. It was suggested to him, by Dan Gunter, that certain content put Mike, who was hosting the VIE site, at risk of law-suits from the Moderator of the Gaean Reach, and the famous Alexander Feht. This absurd contention (neither the GR moderator nor Alexander F. has ever complained to Extant, nor have they delegated Dan Gunter to defend them) provoked the collaps of the VIE site. Dan is now claiming that certain content in Extant slanders himself, and is seeking to disqualify Foreverness on that basis, a situation which has infected wikipedea. I have made prolonged and good-faith efforts to communicate with Dan so that the passage or passages of Extant he is concerned about (as opposed to the 14 issues of Extant) can be identified and ajusted as necessary. Dan, who has indeed been informed of my efforts and my attitude, refuses to contact me, directly or indirectly, and persists in not identifying the alleged objectionable material. This material therefore fails to have more than a virtual existance, a situation which will prevail until Dan Gunter steps forward and identifies the material. Dan's prolonged refusal to take this obvious step towards the ajustment of a situation he claims is prejudicial to himself, suggests his campaign of intimidation and accusations against Extant and Foreverness may be motivated by something other than concern about the alleged objectionable material. The editors of this wikipedia page ought to take these facts into consideration; Foreverness should not be excluded because of unsubstantiated accusation. [Paul Rhoads]--213.11.125.90 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether the accusations are unsubstantiated or not, but I don't propose to look further, because I think the link to Foreverness is unnecessary for other reasons. The way I read the Wikipedia external links policy is that the Vanceana that Russell mentions could be summarized directly in the article, with a link directly to the page inside the Foreverness site that is the reference to the material summarized.  The relevant sentence from that policy: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."  A link to the site overall might be relevant to a separate Wikipedia article on the VIE, but I don't believe it's necessary for this article. Mike Christie 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For what reason has the link to Foreverness been removed from the links section at the bottom of the page? The bibliographic information on Foreverness is otherwize avalable only in VIE volume 44, to say nothing of the rest of the site. [Paul Rhoads, having trouble signing in]--213.11.125.90 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul, the removal of the link is part of this discussion. My suggestion just above your comment is that we should add the relevant information to the article itself and use Foreverness as a reference for the added material.  Foreverness doesn't appear to me to meet the criteria for external links cited in WP:EL. Mike Christie 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. Now how about my points about the VIE section? [Paul Rhoads]--213.11.125.90 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * RLetson, if you genuinely want this nonsense to die down, don't impose it on Wikipedia readers: many of us would rather spend the rest of our lives without any "useful and even unique Vanceana" allegedly found on Rhoads-controlled sites, given a blissful opportunity not to see or hear, ever again, anything remotely reminding us of Rhoads, his odious persona, and his cockamamie writings. Away with your nonsense, away with any links to Rhoads. John S 05:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen: Could we, please, wrap up this distasteful subject? Friends of that mentally disturbed individual are cordially invited to create a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, complete with all the links to his multiple blogs. Leave the VIE description as is; otherwise, keep the Jack Vance page clean. Arvin Sloane 05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the link in the VIE section of the article has been changed from the official VIE site to the Foreverness site. I shall therefore revert it. (Edit: Apparently somebody else did so already.) I am sure most (excluding, of course, those to whom this issue is just "nonsense") will agree that any link in the VIE section should be to the official VIE site, not to a site that the VIE has explicitly repudiated (see the link I gave above). Baphomet V 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For Peter1968: It's dubious to link to the controversial Foreverness site, especially if one does it from the words "300 volunteers." If one must link to information about these volunteers (which I assume is the purpose of the link) one should link directly to the subpage buried a couple of levels down on the Foreverness site where they all are listed. But then again, WHY would one want to link to this information? There is already a link to the official VIE page in this small VIE section, isn't that sufficient? Why also link to this other, dubious, site? The site is dubious for various reasons. For one thing, it's conspicuously not linked to from the official VIE site. Secondly, the link to the publisher Andreas Irle was rightly removed from "External links." If you visit Foreverness you'll find an entire section dedicated to Andreas Irle Publication with a big fat link to this commercial venture. That is both sneaky and dubious. Thirdly, Foreverness mainly consists of an archive of the fanzines Cosmopolis and Extant that, apart from containing articles relating to the glorious VIE project and on Jack Vance of various qualities, also contains endless tirades about Islam, modern art, French politics and a host of other topics with precious little bearing on Vance's sci-fi. Dubious in the true sense of the word./Tetragruppasum


 * Fair enough, I'm happy with that. At the time, I reverted it as it appeared nothing more than a frivolous change. Understandably, there seems to be many axes to grind over the VIE and Vance's Wikipedia article needs to be kept free of them obviously. But, as I said, I'm happy with your explanation. However Mike Christie has his own take on things as you can see in the section beneath this one. Peter1968 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys amaze me…Just for the record I will make a 'terse statement', as the also much maligned Lehuster prefaced his remarks to the conclave at Boumergarth: There is nothing “controversial” about the VIE site that has not been cooked up by a handful of internet trolls, some of whom, like certain ensqualmed magicians, strangely resemble certain wikipedia ‘editors’ here present. The reason the so called “official” VIE site, now emasculated as a vancian resource, does not link to Foreverness is because a certain Dan Gunter, ex-“moderator” of the VanceBBS, has threatened to sue the VIE if it does on the grounds I have defamed his wife in “Extant”. Since I didn’t even know he was married I have been begging him for several month to reveal the issue and page of the defamation, but he prefers to refuse in order to condemn “Extant” as a whole. Several people have reviewed all the issues of “Extant” and remain unable to locate the alleged slander. As for the rest of the “controversy”, it consists of such claims as that the Vatican piloted re-writes of Vance's texts, though the VIE editor-in-chief--but if you know even fact 1 about the VIE, and you think there might be something to such a charge, you are either incredibly stupid, crazy, or evil, or some combination of the above. And the same mind which cooked up that slander cooked up the rest.
 * As for the following allegations:
 * 1-"Foreverness includes an entire section dedicated to Andreas Irle Publication with a big fat link to this commercial venture."
 * This "commercial venture" is the work of two VIE volunteers (Andreas Irle, Rob Friefeld) and the Vance family. Its eventual aim is to make all of Vance's work, which is not currently published by regular publishing houses, available. So far Editions Andreas Irle has published 3 volumes for subscribers (the Lyonesse books, nowhere else available). Discussion of this effort on Foreverness is neither "sneaky" nor "dubious", but a prolongation of the VIE goals, which Foreverness naturally seeks to support.
 * 2-"Foreverness mainly consists of an archive of the fanzines Cosmopolis and Extant that, apart from containing articles relating to the glorious VIE project and on Jack Vance of various qualities, also contains endless tirades about Islam, modern art, French politics and a host of other topics with precious little bearing on Vance's sci-fi."
 * There are 63 issues of Cosmopolis, and 14 issues of Extant. These electronic periodicals were aspects of the VIE project and, as such, contain material which relates to the VIE project itself (as opposed to Vance or his work) including features of many kinds whose intent was project animation. Contributions by dozens and dozens of people make them up, and Cosmopolis and Extant were not designed with wikipedia, or anything else in mind but the progress and success of the VIE projcet. However, they just so happen to contain a horde of valuable Vance related materials such as can be found nowhere else. For a resource concerning Vance, ruling them out as an object of interest is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Finally, any alleged tirades in Cosmopolis of Extant, given the undenyable extent and variety of content, can hardly be qualified as “endless”, and some of the articles which do not bear on "Vance's sci-fi" do bear on his mysteries and fantasies. Furthermore, there are many other features on Foreverness, such as the page of first chapters, (soon to be expanded).
 * [Paul Rhoads]213.11.125.90 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this not becoming somewhat tiresome already? It is unlikely that the other editors will ever agree that this Wikipedia article should be turned into a tool for your self-promotion. And when Dan Gunter (a lawyer) and Ed Winskill, the VIE legal advisor (also a lawyer), warn against linking to the Foreverness site, it seems safest not to link to the Foreverness site. There is little "valuable Vance-related material" in either Cosmopolis or Extant; practically all of the text is written by you, and while Vance is occasionally the official excuse, it is really concerned with "Paul Rhoads, the misunderstood genius." Much like all that you have written here is concerned with impressing us with your own importance, not with saying anything useful about Jack Vance, his work, or how the article might be improved. --Baphomet V 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baphomet V, if you are not Alexander Feht, you are his clone. Your opinion of Extant is, of course, your opinion. Others should decide for themselves, rather than be guided by a person whose hobby horse is denigration (to say the least) of 'Paul Rhoads'. There happen to be many Extant readers who have a different opinion, such as David B. Williams, who has expressed himself on the VanceBBS in these terms;
 * I’d like to point out that Extant 14 [...contains] a lengthy essay by Paul Rhoads explaining why the viewpoint in Domains of Koryphon wanders so alarmingly through the course of the novel. After a quick read I am not sure that I am convinced, but it is a reasoned argument explaining why the viewpoint changes and why Jack Vance would choose to adopt such a structure to tell this particular story. If you are seriously interested in Jack Vance's work, you should take a look at this.
 * Does that mean you? [Paul Rhoads]

Proposed link to Totality
Gents, would you consider adding a link to the Totality Online site? It's a free service (requiring e-mail verification for security reasons) allowing Vance fans to easily look up favourite words and paragraphs throughout the entire Vance opus. Check it out at http://www.pharesm.org If you wish to know more, feel free to ask... Eclectic Omnivore 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're actually free to add your own link or do whatever editing you see fit here. However, it must fit within certain guidelines. I see no real issue with your site being linked, personally. Peter1968 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Worked fine for me, though the end user agreement is a little over the top for what is essentially a fan's database. Try registering with a Gmail account. Peter1968 11:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add the link. I know that, in principle, anyone can edit the article, but seeing as you gentlemen are working hard to maintain a level of quality and standardization, I thought I'd ask first :-) As to the above comment regarding the registration process: works fine with most users, but we have the occasional glitch where the registration confirmation doesn't reach the applicant for some obscure reason. In that case we activate the account manually and send a note. Should have happened by now in your case. The end user agreement was created in collaboration with the Vance family, and reflects their wishes. It may seem over the top to you, but the database contains all of Jack's works, and certain legal aspects concerning user rights need to be adequately covered. Eclectic Omnivore 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Totality site worked, and seems to be useful. The previous problem was my mistake: I made a typo in my e-mail address while registering. Alex Feht 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

VIE link
I see some recent conflicting links to the VIE site. The most recent requests a reason for the link's inclusion. I believe the link should be included because the VIE is a notable fact about Vance and should be referenced for verifiability. I'd be happy converting that link to a footnote, and will do so if you suggest that that's acceptable, but it is clearly the best way to supply verifiability to that paragraph. Mike Christie 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To repeat, the Foreverness site at www.integralarchive.com, which is what Paul Rhoads wishes to link to, is not the VIE site (which is at www.vanceintegral.com). Furthermore, it is not associated with the official VIE site. Finally, the VIE organization has explicitly made known (see the message board link above) that it does not wish to be associated with it. Baphomet V 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I misunderstood -- it's the official VIE site I thought was being linked to; I must have misread the links in the diffs. I've said elsewhere that I think it would be OK to link to a specific page in Foreverness in the form of a footnote ref, in order to support specific information, but I agree that there is no reason to provide a general link to the whole site.  Thanks for the clarification.  Mike Christie 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Slavery
"The Last Castle partially centers around two societies, one human and one alien, each of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort." Wouldn't this be The Dragon Masters? Or have I experienced a serious memory glitch? RLetson 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This description would be equally applicable to The Last Castle and to The Dragon Masters. Arvin Sloane 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with RLetson: The sentence must refer to "The Dragon Masters". The meks in "The Last Castle" have not enslaved humans.--Tetragruppasum 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tetragruppasum: Humans in The Last Castle have enslaved the Meks. That makes this book "partially centered around two societies, one human and one alien, one of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort." Arvin Sloane 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a barrel of fun, Sasha. Is this your way of saying that we were right and you were wrong? Kind of ironic that you had to edit out the "think before you type" slur, though. Tetragruppasum 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * — "Think before you type" is a useful rule for anybody, including myself. On what basis do you infer that it could be intended as a "slur"? Your readiness to dig up any miserable morsel of insult in an archived copy of a pre-edited text reveals a paltry, morbid, prejudicial character. No, your unconvincing "irony" won't get you out of the trap that you prepared for yourself: humans in The Last Castle have enslaved the Meks. That makes this book "partially centered around two societies, one human and one alien, one of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort." And that is all I am saying, barring unsolicited interpreters of plain English. Arvin Sloane 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't dig up nuthin'. It so happens I read this discussion always through its History page, version by version, with all changes marked conveniantly in red. In other words: every move you make, every claim you stake, every name you fake pass in review before my jaded eyes. So my recommendation is not only to think before you type but also to prepare your comments in advance using some text editor and then paste your definitive text into the form. As for your blabla, it can't change the fact that the discussion concerned these words "two societies, one human and one alien, each of which has enslaved members of the other, to their mutual discomfort" and nothing else. The Vance article has recently been changed and turned cockamamie in an ill-advised attempt to describe two quite different stories with one description.
 * I made the change; it is correct and reasonable, because neither The Last Castle nor The Dragon Masters describe mutual enslavement by "two societies, one human and one alien, each of which has enslaved members of the other." As it is now, the description is correct. You would also benefit from the text editor, since "conveniently" is spelled with "e." Now I am going to ask you for a favor: please, stop wasting my time. Play your "inferiority complex" games with somebody else. --Arvin Sloane 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also recommend Wikipedia's "Show preview" button. And please enlighten us as to which side it is that has enslaved members of the other in DM. The humans or the grephs? Tetragruppasum 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "You fool! These 'Revered Ones' are slaves, just as you are a slave to the Basics! We breed them to serve us, just as you are bred! Have at least the grace to recognize your own degradation!" (Quoted from The Dragon Masters to enlighten certain Tetragrupparsum) Arvin Sloane 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that sounds an awful lot like "mutual enslavement by two societies." Tetragruppasum 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read The Dragon Masters before embarrassing yourself further, and — again — stop wasting my time. You may have the last word if that's what important to you. Arvin Sloane 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will explain in your words, so that you will comprehend. Certainties -- no, not certainties; definites exist. These are units of certainty, quanta of necessity and order. The activity of the universe can be expressed by reference to these units. Irregularity, absurdity -- these are like half a man, with half a brain, half a heart, half of his vital organs. Neither are allowed to exist. That [Alexander could be mistaken] is such an absurdity, an outrage to the rational flow of the universe.

That sentence has become a mess--perhaps because it's trying to link the novels in a way that ignores their somewhat different designs and agendas. I propose expanding to two or more sentences that permit the similarities to be pointed up while retaining the distinctions, perhaps something like this: "The Dragon Masters and The Last Castle both revolve around enslavement of one species by another. In the former, both humans and reptilian Basics have selectively bred their captives and treat them as domestic animals and slave-soldiers. In the latter, humans have imported a variety of aliens that they have made into servants and workers. Both situations generate ironic questions about the nature of freedom and authenticity." RLetson 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Gordian solution. Since I cannot abide inaccuracies, I wholeheartedly concur. Tetragruppasum 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No objection. Emphyrio could be mentioned in the same vein. Arvin Sloane 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the slavery passage, including the Dragon Masters/Last Castle part. RLetson 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aerth
Why does aerth redirect here? DirkvdM 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea why. Since that article has no content, I've requested it be deleted. Peter1968 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

political books
"Vance wrote two political books ... and also this one ... and also these two ..." and no mention of Wyst? Funny. &mdash;Tamfang 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct, so go ahead and mention Wyst in the same section. --Arvin Sloane 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a long and strong thread of political and social concern that runs through JV's work from the early 1950s onward--what is slavery if not a political question? The politics became increasingly explicit and particular from the late 1960s, and much of the conflict in the Cadwal books is rooted in political issues and social attitudes. Then there's Durdane, and Emphyrio, and "Assault on a City." . . . RLetson 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, what's that Huey Newton reference doing still in this section? It's an unsourced and almost certainly original-research assertion. I'll cut it if nobody can come up with a source. RLetson 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and cut the Newton reference and did some rewriting and expansion of the "poltical" paragraphs. RLetson 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Possible Influences" section
It's full of transparent advocacy--"the celebrated chapter in the The Book of Dreams"; "no manifest ancestor in English-language fiction"; and so on. Celebrated by whom, I wonder; and if JV's style is so unprecidented, why the catalogue of "intriguing parallels" in the third paragraph? That last paragraph, by the way, is not only suspectly POV but probably "original research" as well--how many of those comparisons beyond the familar Clark Ashton Smith one are mentioned by commentators on JV's style? At the very least, they need to be sourced, and the whole section needs to be toned down. (In fact, that applies to the entire article.) RLetson 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I am passionate about it but consider this: Everything gets "toned down" in a democracy to suit everyone's objections and preferences – until there is no tone to speak of, and nobody's preferences are suited. That's exactly how during the 20th century many important things – culture, education, enterprise – were irrevocably destroyed. I say: rules exist to be ignored until there's a dire need for their application. Arvin Sloane 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mysteries
I have added to Hayford's revision of the Mysteries section by moving the early mention of JV's mystery writing into that section and doing some patch-in rewriting and removing POV comments. I have two questions about unsourced comparisons: who says that Magnus Ridolph is like the Saint; and who says that Night Lamp has echoes of P.D. James's Unsuitable Job for a Woman? Both statements may be defensible, but they should not originate with any of the editors. RLetson 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a nice job of rewriting -- you've removed a lot of objectionable stuff. But I think the Saint and P.D. James stuff should go also.  Also, you write:  "With a few exceptions most of Vance’s science fiction is set in a near, far, or very far future...."  "Near," "far," and "very far" pretty much cover the gamut, I'd say.  What's left?  "Medium-far future"?  And who defines any of these terms?  So I don't think that this tells us very much.... Hayford Peirce 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--FWIW, the variously distant futures isn't my copy--other fish needed frying, so I left it in place even though it bothered me as well. Next time I'm in a revising mood, I'll replace it with something like "Most of Vance's stories are set in far or very far distant futures" and figure a way to splice it onto that Gaean Reach passage. The first sentence in that paragraph needs fixed as well--the connection between publishing venues and story settings doesn't quite work. (Aren't nearly all of JV's SF stories set in the "space age"?) RLetson 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I cut the Saint and P.D. James references. What about the Jack London connection? Can anybody point to a source? RLetson 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about something like this: "While Vance's stories have a wide variety of settings, a majority of them belong to a period long after humanity has colonized other stars." &mdash;Tamfang 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds perfect to me, except that I would edit it slightly to say "a wide variety of temporal settings, the majority belong etc...." Hayford Peirce 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreverness Link
UPDATE

Please note that the statements of Ed Winskill, on the Jack Vance Message Board (JVMB) upon which Baphomet V bases his argument against a link to Foreverness, have been removed, by the administrator of the JVMB, who, like Ed Winskill, is also a VIE board member. (NB: the JVMB has no official connection with the VIE.) JVMB policy against links to Foreverness has also been rescinded, by JVMB moderator Dan Gunter. As for Baphomet Vs contention that Foreverness is primarily a repository of this or that, this is easy to verify. Do so now: Foreverness. Among VIE project materials presented by Foreverness are basic resources such as the VIE list of all Vance's writing; published, unpublished, and lost; chronology and word counts; VIE textual notes from vol. 44. Foreverness has also been authorized, by Jack Vance himself, to publish first chapters from various novels. So far 4 have been posted, and more are to come. Foreverness also links to important resources, such as the on-line version of Vance story Green Magic (permission for which was arranged in 2000 by Nick Jeevers and Paul Rhoads). As for the VIE news letters (over 75 issues), they are the most extensive source of textual and literary studies of Vance's work in existence, thanks to contributions by dozens of people. These studies, and many other VIE newsletter items of interest Vance readers, are now conveniently available though the Foreverness indexes. Blocking a link from the Wikipedia Jack Vance page to Foreverness may give personal satisfaction to a very small group of anti-VIE militants whose agenda can be of no interest to anyone but themselves, but it deprives anyone interested in the work of Jack Vance access to the major internet resource of vancian materials. PaulRhoads- 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have just spent some time going through the site and I think there is no question but that it is pertinent and relevant to any article about Vance.  I've tried to be impartial in this on-going argument and have, I think, annoyed people on both sides.  I'm still impartial: if this article were about Mickey Spillain and the link went to a similar Spillain site, I'd say the same thing: Leave it there! Hayford Peirce 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case how 'bout putting it in there? If I dare do it, with my filthy hands and notorious incapacity to write coherant english, what would the harvast be?PaulRhoads- 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It bears repeating that The Vance Integral Edition, a California non-profit corporation, explicitly disavows any connection with the site Foreverness and the material found there. You will note that there is no link from the official Vance Integral Edition page, http://www.vanceintegral.com/, to Foreverness. Foreverness is not an official Vance Integral Edition site. Foreverness does not represent the Vance Integral Edition. Foreverness is misrepresenting its connection to the Vance Integral Edition. Therefore it is inappropriate to link to Foreverness in connection with discussion of the VIE in the article, and possibly an infringement of intellectual property rights held by the Vance Integral Edition to do so. Not to mention in poor taste.--Baphomet V 22:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And now again the link to the start page of the Foreverness site has been made from the words "300 volunteers." When will this nonsense stop? --Tetragruppasum 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's unnecessary. Hayford Peirce 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baphomet V’s anti-Forevernessness is based on exactly nothing; the statements, previously posted on a discussion board, itself without official connection to the VIE project, to which Baphomet V refers, have been removed. That the VIE site does not link to Foreverness also proves nothing because that page has no links whatsoever, not even an electronic contact address. Furthermore, that Jack Vance himself has given Foreverness permission to post first chapters of his books in thier official VIE versions and typesettings must clear away any ambiguity about the bone-fides of this site.
 * As for a link to Foreverness from the VIE section being useless, while the link to the VIE site is harmless enough, it offers almost no information about the project, while Foreverness, offers a Vance Integral Edition page with an essay by Tim Stretton (VIE Principal Manager) about project history and methods, an essay by Alun Hughes (VIE head of Textual Integrity) on VIE textual restoration, and a page of VIE volume images, plus other project related information, while a Bibliography page offers a list of VIE volume contents and other project generated resources; there is also a special index listing Cosmopolis and Extant articles relevant to the project itself. Is this not the sort of thing someone interested in learning more about the VIE project would be glad to find? What, Tetragruppasum, is non-sensical about this, and what Hayford Peirce, is unnecessary about it? Is not the VIE site even more unnecessary by the criteria you are using? PaulRhoads- 11:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Two links in this Wikipedia article to your fanboy site is at least one too many. Also if one high-lights by linking the words "300 volunteers" the reader would expect to come to a page where these volunteers are described in detail. But this is not the case with your link. It is just another attempt to lure people to your site. All this has been explained to you before. --Tetragruppasum 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you call Foreverness a 'fan boy site'? Why do you call it 'my site'? Does a site with first chapters of Vance's books, posted with his permission, deserve this qualification? What about the bibliographic information? Cosmopolus, of course, does have articles by me--a fault which cannot be covered up--but also by many other people! I have now linked "300 volunteers" to the page of Foreverness which gives detailed information about the volunteers. These hundreds of people are all Vance readers, how volunteered their time, during a six year period, to honor Jack Vance as no writer has ever been honored by his readers in history. Will you allow this link? If not, why not? (and will you please tone down your patronizing attitude?) PaulRhoads- 05:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lest in our enthusiasm we forget: This is not an article about the VIE; it is an article about Jack Vance. I think it is reasonable to mention the VIE briefly. But it seems perfectly obvious that any links in this connection should be to the official VIE organization homepage, not to some controversial offshoot that is not recognized by the VIE corporation.--Baphomet V 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the VIE is going to be mentioned at all it seems absurd to fail to point to that site where real and abundant information about that Internet project can be had. A formalistic stricture such as Baphomet proposes is a criteria used nowhere else on this Jack Vance page, notably in the links section.
 * Since no writer, whatsoever, has been honored in such as way as Jack Vance has been honored, by his readers, with the VIE project, I cannot help wondering what Baphomet's problem with this amazing and unique phenomenon is. His personal obession with 2 or three of the 300+ VIE volunteers seems not merely absurd and uninteresting, but insignificant.
 * As for alleged non-recognition by the VIE corporation; Baphomet should present evedence of this, pointing to actual statements on the official site, not unverifiable reports which do not exist on non-VIE sites. In any case, what difference whould such 'non-recognition' make? Foreverness was created by the same people who managed the VIE project, and has been favored, by Jack Vance himself with permission to present first chapters of his works, in VIE versions and formattings. What more do you want?PaulRhoads- 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the most useful purpose this article might serve would be to provide the newcomer to Vance's fiction with, primarily, solid information on what the man has actually written and published. In this regard lengthy dwelling on the VIE is, at the very least, highly misleading. The VIE is not in print. It was an expensive limited edition. The volumes are unobtainable, having all been sold already. We might more usefully write about and link to TOR Books, who actually keep Vance in print. Likewise, the article currently misleadingly gives the VIE titles of Vance's books as the "correct" titles. But in many cases there are no books in print that carry these titles, and it seems unlikely that there ever will be. For instance, there is an ibooks edition of To Live Forever, from the VIE text (as I understand it), available, but it is called just that, not "Clarges."

If one nevertheless feels the VIE should be mentioned, it stands to reason that any links should be to the actual VIE corporation and nowhere else. If former participants in the VIE project wish to celebrate their achievement among themselves, without the blessing of the VIE corporation, I am sure this is a fine thing---but I cannot see what conceivable purpose could be served by bringing this celebration into the Wikipedia Vance article.--Baphomet V 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bophamet V, you are precious! The VIE is mentioned in 3 lines in the article. Is this 'dwelling'? The interest of the VIE is not as a publisher, but as an event, a fact; 300 of Vance's readers worked, on a volunteer basis, for 6 years, to create an archival edition of his work, both in print and in ellectronic form. VIE texts have stimulated Vance republication, all of which use VIE texts. No writer, in all of history, has recieved a comparable honor. You failed to contribute to this event. You did you best to hamper it in your strange belief that it was, somehow, denaturing Vance's work. Now you are doing your best to reduce the prestige this unpresidented accomplishment, inspired by Vance's work, lends to the author. Why? I am not not a sociopathologist so I will not venture an answer.
 * As for your objections to the VIE book set itself;
 * 1) It was not exspensive. The project had to sell whole sets but the per-volume price was very low given quality. (Folks; don't take Bophamet's word about this, check out the VIE books yourself, at Foreverness. There are trade paperbacks that are more expensive than VIE 'Readers' volumes, with their leather spines and gold stamping.
 * 2) The volumes ARE obtainable. They are in several libraries, there are a few sets still for sale, and Editions Andreas Irle is publishing them in paperback--a fact more people need to become aware of since this is the only likely source for many Vance titles for years to come.
 * 3) VIE titles are Vance's titles, so as to their being 'correct' or not, if you want to publish your own list of 'correct' titles, do so, by all means! It will carry the authority of whoever is hiding behind the name 'Bophamet V'. Jack Vance has published his own list, via the VIE. No one is comitting a crime by using other titles, it is a publishing practise from way back, but there is nothing 'misleading' in the VIE's use of the titles that Jack Vance puts on his own stories.--PaulRhoads- 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

system of magic

 * The system of magic used in Vance's work, in which spells are memorised and then forgotten once cast . ..

Appearances of magic are both sporadic and varied; there's no one system consistent throughout Vance's work. Which story has that feature? &mdash;Tamfang 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IIRC, spells working like this are mentioned in The Dying Earth and The Eyes of the Overworld. The spell-caster consults a tome and memorizes one or more ad hoc spells. Cugel misremembers a syllable or two and the magic goes awry. --Tetragruppasum 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Memorizing (or mis-memorizing) spells is a common premise. Forgetting them with use is less so.  &mdash;Tamfang 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We may note that the new triva section, whatever its importance or non-importance, has caused zero controversy, while mention of the VIE, a 6 year event in which Jack Vance himself was personally involved, and which honors him as no author has ever been honored before, is the suject of, shall we say, a good deal of foolishness. I am NOT urging that the Jack Vance page be devoted the the VIE; I am simply pointing out the oddness of certain reactions. PaulRhoads- 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To which reactions I certainly count yours, and those of your "doppelganger." Actually I don't recall any foolishness here before you arrived on the scene. --Tetragruppasum 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tetragruppasum, who are you?PaulRhoads- 10:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

300 VIE Volunteers link
Bophamet V; why are you deleting a link regarding a specific item in one of the article sections?PaulRhoads- 13:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For reasons that we have, above, gone over with you again and again. It is clear that with the exception of yourself, everyone agrees that there should be no such link in that place. If you continue to put it in, in defiance of the consensus of the rest of the interested parties, you will very likely end up finding your activities reported, at long last, to the Wikipedia authorities.--Baphomet V 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't speak for people who have not delegated you to do so. Your posititions are not supported above. This page is making a claim of alleged fact, that 300 volunteers prepaired the VIE. You have never objected to this line in the tiny VIE section, the presence of which you also accept. It is normal, in the on-line world, to reference such things. The page referenced shows that the claim is supported by this transcript of the VIE volume 44 volunteer work credit page. What is wrong with this? Please be specific. PaulRhoads- 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question of delegation never arises; what individual editors think about this can already be read right here on this page. You appear to think that if five minutes have passed since it was last settled that you should not add your link, it is suddenly OK again to do so. Please stop sabotaging the effort to keep the Jack Vance article sober and informative.


 * What is wrong with the Foreverness link? To repeat, having it in the VIE section might lead the unwary to assume it is somehow associated with the VIE organization, whereas in fact it is something you have created in opposition to the wishes of the VIE organization, despite their demands that you cease and desist.--Baphomet V 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The latest version of the article, with the link to the list of VIE books looks like a reasonable one to me. I would leave it as it is. Hayford Peirce 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of anyone assuming that Foreverness is, or is not, associated with the VIE? It is simply a fact that much more information about the VIE is avalable on the Foreverness site than on the VIE site, and, more importantly, that the VIE site has no VIE generated bibliographic, textual or other information, which can only be found on Foreverness. The distinction Baphomet V is eager to make, and for which he can supply not one single piece of evedence or published official statement, is nuncupatory. In any case Foreverness is a site made by VIE project managers and volunteers, which, furthermore, enjoys the confidance of Jack Vance himself, by whose permission Foreverness is presenting VIE versons of first chapters of many of his novels. PaulRhoads- 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I find it difficult to believe you cannot see where this is going.--Baphomet V 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where, exactly, would this be? PaulRhoads- 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The linking to a specific subpage actually describing the linked words is an improvement and certainly a shrewder move than the earlier attempt using the "300 volunteers" as an excuse to include yet another link to his site. Since there now is a link to Foreverness in the VIE section I propose we remove the one in External links. --Tetragruppasum 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, please ignore Rhoads and remove his provocations sine irae et studio. This individial has been off his trolley for many years now. All he wants is attention. Arvin Sloane 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Arvin Sloane, this post is still a personal attack per wikipedia guidelines. I am going to carry this matter to the next step.PaulRhoads- 10:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comes close to being a personal attack IMHO. Might wish to tone it down a bit. Peter1968 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tone it down a bit, or just drop it entierly! What have I done to deserve such an attitude? And why is it tollerated even to a degree? PaulRhoads- 13:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Were you by any chance the anonymous author of the changes to the External Links sections found in this version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Vance&diff=next&oldid=32351333? --Baphomet V 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Baphomet V', Are you adressing me? As for me, I sign in when I work, and I do not hide my identity. As for you: who are you? PaulRhoads- 09:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly an emphatic denial. So you mean there are two editors loose on these pages making the same kind of changes and posts, with the same kind of spelling mistakes, and with the same internet provider? Yes, that is very likely. --Tetragruppasum 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly an emphatic denial? I don't even understand the question. When I do anything on this page I am signed is as PaulRhoads. ok? Now: who are you? PaulRhoads- 10:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand. Your last message is signed "PaulRhoads-", an account that has been active since August 14 of this year. Are you saying that the owner of the "PaulRhoads" account, which is a different account, is not also you?--Baphomet V 19:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template discussion
Getting a page is large message again, might be time to move some of this into an archive. Peter1968 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Arvin Sloane 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't remove the WPBio assessment tag, please. --kingboyk 09:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will remove it, because your tasteless photo insults me, personally, and, in my opinion, insults Jack Vance. Also, I strongly disagree with your grading of this article in particular, and with your grading system in general. Keep your "project" away from this page, please. Arvin Sloane 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

TO VANDALS RESTORING RACIST TAGS: please, cease and desist! All his life Jack Vance despised racially motivated concepts of multiculturalism and political correctness. He wrote books and stories revealing immoral ugliness and bigotry behind these artificial concepts. His page in Wikipedia is no place for imposing ideological propaganda of this sort. My actions are strictly within Wikipedia policies, don't try to throw a book at me, you'll catch it back. I have a right to remove these tags three times a day, and I will do this until the end of my days (which is a long, long wait). Deal with it: not everybody shares your prejudices. Arvin Sloane 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the standard biography template posted above, take it up on the talk page of the template and do not disrupt this article with an edit war. Gamaliel 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What good is that going to do? You guys (administrators, super-active Wikipedia addicts, template inventors, bored individuals, etc) seem hell-bent on converting Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia editable and readable by anyone, into some sort of esoteric cross-referenced morass of hypercomplexity. Every day I come to contribute to this admittedly well-intentioned website, there's some new template, some new project, some new policy (usually arcane and for the benefit of the person who quotes it), some new shortcut, some funkified userbar or some such. It's gone beyond a joke. The KISS principle pass you guys by, did it? You do know what you're succeeding at with all these shortcuts, templates and cross-references, don't you? You're turning people off from contributing by purposeful obfuscation. Peter1968 08:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The place to argue this is on the template page or at the Village Pump, not one article out of thousands which use the template. Please use this page to discuss the Jack Vance article. Gamaliel 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Until you came along, discussing the Jack Vance article was precisely what we were doing here. Hadn't you noticed? Peter1968 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. Computer gizmos in Wikipedia have become a plague. Editors are a close-knit, politically motivated group of PC types. In their view, personal recollections of a Gulag prisoner would be "POV," while sunny reports on successes of Stalinism referenced to Pravda would be OK, "published source." What's most chilling, these guys are absolutely sure they know how to fix the world. Arvin Sloane 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gizmo. Is that what you are referring to? :) -- Renesis13 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like a small victory. At least, I don't have to pinch my nose every time I come here: racist PC photo is gone, Rhoads is gone. Now, it would be nice if those second-rate public school staffers with tons of time on their hands would remove their ugly tags altogether. Play with your tags in your sandboxes, boys and gorls, leave this page alone. Arvin Sloane 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this: if you do, in fact, maintain ownership of this content about Jack Vance, and have such a high disregard for the goals of Wikipedia and the projects set forth to aid in achieving those goals, then why do you have any interest in having it on Wikipedia at all? Wouldn't it be easier to just set up your own website?  If you want to control the content, surely an encyclopedia article with one page, licensed under the GFDL, thousands and thousands of editors, and policies and projects out of your control isn't the ideal place. -- Renesis13 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "We" don't "own" this page, Renesis13, and neither do you. Anyone may add, amend, refute, alter, etc, as per Wikipedia's charter. What I object to, and I'm sure I'm not alone, is the merely curious coming in here, pursing their virtual lips and telling us we're not sourcing stuff, or we're not writing articles true to the spirit of some policy, etc. Seeing that the merely curious are as much editor as I am, it has to be asked: why can't the merely curious make these changes for the better, rather than tell us "regulars" here what to do? If any of these merely curious feel a need for change, go ahead and make them, and don't expect others to do the work for you. Fair enough request, don't you think? Peter1968 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Renesis13: Long, mendacious question. Short, straight answer: your tags have nothing to do with content. Your "projects" have no popular support in general, and on this page in particular. See Peter's message above, he explained your intentions quite well. Arvin Sloane 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter knows nothing about my intentions; the projects do have wide popular support; the tags have everything to do with compiling, writing, and maintaining content, and of course they have nothing to do with the subject (hence their placement solely on the talk page, which exists for discussion of those tasks); neither the projects or tags are mine; your use of the word mendacious is completely wrong. And, you didn't even answer my question at all. -- Renesis13 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the Jack Vance talk page doesn't exist for discussion of any of your projects. It exists for discussion of the article about Jack Vance. As to the "wide popular support," please tell me: how wide, exactly? How many people voted for them, and how many against? When, where, and how the poll was conducted? Why wasn't I notified? I am sure that, if asked, the majority of Wikipedia users would tell you that these tags are out of place, too conspicuous, and detracting from the subject. But you will never put this issue to vote, would you? You are imposing things on people, according to your own delusional image of what's "useful and right." Alas, our delusions are incompatible. Arvin Sloane 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it existed for discussion of any of "my" projects. I said it exists for the discussion of tasks related to the building of this page. Many, many editors have gone to much work to determine what needs to be done for all sorts of different categories of articles.  After all, this article is part of a much larger project (an Encyclopedia) and needs to be treated like other biographies.  I am not saying anything is wrong with this article right now, just that tags which categorize biographies and notify to anyone adding potentially harmful information to living person biographies what the requirements for addition are, are useful, not detrimental, to the quality of the article.  Every initiative must have consensus, which is a supermajority of support, before being implemented across Wikipedia.  I don't know why you weren't notified.  I wasn't either.  I'm not even part of the project.  If you are truly interested in improving Wikipedia, whether it is just this article or any number of articles, then you need to be able to participate in concordance with the five pillars of Wikipedia and with the other policies.  As far as any other iniative or guideline, you are certainly not forced to agree with them but you are encouraged to  voice any disagreement you have in a proper manner.  Blanking pages, treating people with disrespect, and being generally disruptive isn't going to get you anywhere, regardless of whether or not you have a roaming IP.  I'm saying this not to keep you down, but to encourage you to contribute positively instead of negatively so we can all get on with it and we can continue to improve Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening.  I'm going to archive this section in a few hours. -- Renesis13 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Sigh.) Before the project in question started, there was nothing on this page but a discussion of tasks related to the building of this page. The unsolicited appearance of conspicuous, unnecessary, tasteless tags disrupted this page, and brought to it the unwelcome attention of individuals who have no real interest in the subject.
 * You failed to demonstrate that the project in question has or had "wide popular support." In fact, you cannot demonstrate it, because this project was never voted upon, and was imposed on unsuspecting Wikipedia users in an uncalled-for manner. I don't care if you are a part of this project or not. Since you are defending its usefulness and necessity on this page, the responsibility of demonstrating this page community's support of it is upon your shoulders.
 * Please, don't archive anything before at least some users of this page asked you to do so. The archiving on this page is performed when it reaches an unmanageable length, not for personal reasons, and only if there are no objections. You and Gamaliel seem not to understand it.
 * Now, about respect. First of all, let me remind you that you were the first to appear on this page with a disrespectful remark (see above). Secondly, respect must be earned. It is a widespread fallacy that anybody has, automatically, a "right for respect." I don't respect your views expressed so far, and it is my opinion that communicating with you is largely a waste of time. I have contributed to numerous Wikipedia articles, and I know a bit about how to write, being a professional writer for 25 years. Before Gamaliel and you came here, nobody here presumed to lecture the others. Your impudence is magnified by the fact that you don't realize the inappropriateness of your behavior. So, please, if you have nothing further to say, and unable to answer any of my questions, leave this page alone, and take ugly tags and the unsubstantiated rating with you. Arvin Sloane 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know what disrespectful remark that I made that you are referring to; I don't see any. You are quite wrong about respect.  Everybody deserves some measure of respect for the sole reason that without it, nothing would ever be accomplished.  You lost your right to the "respect" of asking permission by proving that you know how to do nothing but over-react, attack, and misbehave to get your point across.  You are also quite wrong about any of us lecturing anybody.  Biography tags, simply, belong on Biography articles.  Nobody needs to ask permission(WP:BOLD).
 * I am sorry that you can't even respond politely to comments written with the most respect possible under the circumstances. I'm done with this issue. Please just read WP:OWN and the articles I referenced above before you continue. You nor anyone else owns this page, it does not have any sort of panel that must approve any and all actions, and users made edit this page for a number of reasons, of which "interest" in the issue is just one. Also, this discussion will be added to "Archive 2" because it has no place here, it is quite a bit more disruptive than the tags you hate so badly. -- Renesis13 06:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you don't own this page either, I object to your intention of hiding your mess ASAP. I would like everybody concerned to see, what all this was about, and to judge for themselves. Unless you get some support from regular participants of this talk page, please, leave it intact. I don't have time to explain to you, why respect must be earned. You shall find out when you will accumulate enough experience. Arvin Sloane 06:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Renesis" and "Gamaliel," it is clear that you have no business here except for pointless meddling and provocation. Go away, or find yourself reported.--Baphomet V 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's let it rest, shall we? Everyone's position has been made clear. Peter1968 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter, it would seem quite hopeless to try to do anything constructive given how Arvin Sloan and Bophamet V allow themselves to behave on the Internet. Your reasonable and rational persona will not influence bad intentions. I suggest the establishment of a 'majority' in favor of rational and cordial work on this page. This would put some bite into your desire for peace and productivity, but cannot be achieved unless you are willing to call a spade a spade. PaulRhoads- 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The pot calling the kettle black. --Tetragruppasum 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not quite. More like the pot calling beautiful green trees and the endless blue sky---black.--Baphomet V 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...See what I mean? PaulRhoads- 13:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my ostentatiously strident tone and somewhat hysterical appeals concerning the PC propaganda photograph in the Bio project tag. I assumed that tone on purpose, to bring Wikipedia editors' attention to the matter. They would not respond to rational requests (I tried that before) but playing the race card using a new anonym did the trick. Now, this offensive photograph is removed from tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages! I think even Paul Rhoads (whose views on political correctness I actually share) would not deny that this is a positive result. I wish they would remove those tags altogether — but this kind of battle would be much harder, taking into account the political indoctrination of Wikipedia's top hierarchy. We know the Cabal will always deny that there is a Cabal, don't we? Arvin Sloane 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)