Talk:David Eddings

Child abuse

I added a note to refer to the child abuse case that occurred in 1970. I liked the main newspaper reference that isn't behind a paywall, but the following Reddit thread lists more pages relevant to this case:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/9g51bb/david_eddings_child_abuse_allegations/?st=jul99va8&sh=5d390bad

I believe this is particularly important given that some of his works contain references to child abuse acts (I actually discovered all this after reading such an occurence):

"I just wanted to look at the sea," the boy protested. "I've never seen the sea before."

Kurik was grimly removing his wide leather belt.

"Now, wait a minute, Kurik," Talen said, struggling to free himself from Berit's grasp. "You wouldn't really do that, would you?"

"Watch me."

— David Eddings, The Elenium

Kurik is one of the companions of the hero, and Talen is his son... This isn't the first occurence, Talen got frequently hit before by the character named Berit as part of his 'education'.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.213.74 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just seen that it was previously added but reverted - hopefully my extra source should be enough to make it stick?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Eddings&type=revision&diff=891891395&oldid=891749887

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.213.74 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Added more sources from various South Dakota newspapers at the time. BoosterBronze (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Important note. The college that employed Eddings can't confirm WHY he was fired. They don't have those records, but it does exactly coincide with his trial and jail time. BoosterBronze (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The attempted white-washing of David and Leigh's child abuse continues to be a consistent and chronic issue with editors. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Birth location

He grew up in Puget Sound? In the water? -- Zoe

Puget Sound also refers to the area not just the body of water. Ahkaris (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

OK, so is it spelt "Malloreon" or "Mallorean"? Both elicit responses from Google. Best fun is that Amazon doesn't seem to be certain :-) Phil 09:11, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, the scanned cover at Amazon UK shows "Malloreon", so unless anyone objects massively, I'm going to learn how to rename a page specially for this task. Phil 09:30, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

"Malloreon" does indeed to be the spelling of the series, however in the books the name Mallorean is given to a person who lives in Mallorea. Which does raise the question, was the series name misspelt on all the books ? --Imran

its malloreon, mostly, does it really matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgrw1 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the name is not meant to be the same as that for an inhabitant: it's more connected to the nation as a whole. A Mallorean is an inhabitant of "endless" Mallorea, the Malloreon is a "saga" (for want of a better term) focussed on the history of Mallorea. Am I making sense? Phil 11:52, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

(hangs head in shame) I've just discovered that this is all moot since someone has already done the move ... in May! However whoever did it failed to rename any of the links on David Eddings so I think I'll do that instead. Phil 11:55, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late, but Phil had it right and did indeed make sense. "Mallorean" is the adjective of "Mallorea", a continent where much of this series' action takes place. "Malloreon" is the name of the series, in the same tradition of Classical-sounding suffixes as Eddings uses for his other series (compare "Belgariad" to "Iliad"). -- Perey 18:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologise to all of you for bringing the A/O problem back into the fray without checking the David Eddings talk page (I checked the book talk pages and found nothing there). I am very embarrassed, and I'll be sure not to make a similar mistake again. Also, the actual books themselves use "Malloreon", but I think I must have seen "Mallorean" in my mind until I actually focused on that one letter. -- Deathphoenix 15:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link

I noticed that the epic fantasy link is broken. I have changed the link (but kept its appearance) to send the user to high fantasy. I understand the possibility that some might see a difference between the two genres, but as Eddings himself is listed on the high fantasy page I see little reason to differentiate. I apologize for taking such initiative (if it is unwarranted) but I am new to wikipedia. Reediewes 01:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC) I went through and infoboxed all of the pages, based on what was on them, followed by info off of Amazon. I also cleared up some issues where links to individual books weren't being redirected to the series, i.e., the first book of the Dreamers and the first book of the Belgariad had thier own pages, without anything that wasn't on the main series page, while the rest of them redirected themselves; this has been fixed. Figured I'd write this on the main Eddings page, rather than each individual series page. PresN 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some hyperlinks...?

I just thought that it would be nice if we had some hyperlinks directing to the books, that's all. Lady Nimue of the Lake 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Praise/Criticism

I'd like to see a Praise/Criticism section so people can get an idea of what kind of writer Eddings is. Such as his fantastic Character Development vs. his books being all very similar in structure. only up to wikipedia standards, which i find myself unable to meet usually.Phil 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really within the scope of a Wikipedia biography page. Also, I think most pragmatic readers would agree that Edding's character development is incredibly poor. After all, what do you really know about Belgarath AS A CHARACTER at the end of the Malloreon, that you didn't know about him at the end of the Belgariad? Nothing. How has he changed? He hasn't. Some facts are revealed about him perhaps, but that is not character development. Contrast this with a fully realized character like Roland Deschain, from The Dark Tower...Mikejstevenson 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I prefered that the Belgarath character remained a bit mysterious. The character was much more further developed in Belgarath the Sorcer. Maybe that was Edding's way of getting people to buy more of his books. If you knew everything there was to know why would you pay money for a biography?SaraJean 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree here. I think Eddings does a beautiful job at character development. When you can hear a characters voice while reading the words, character development has to be working. When you can laugh at the conversations and feel shock, sadness, mirth in the words, there is talented character development. Everyone I know who has read the Belgarion and the Malloreon have been able to find people in their on lives that could be each and evey character in the books. The mother figure Polgara represents is found in households all across the world. Guiding, teaching and caring for all; while making it look so simple. Belgrath, is the lovable slighty seed uncle that you see now and then and when you do he always has a story to tell. You can find these characters and relate to them as easily as you breathe. In the next to series, some of the fun of reading the books, was the seach to find the remembered favorite character from the first set. Most were not direct copies of the former charcter but the character given a new traight, skill, kindness or a new deminsion, a deeper purpose. If you don't want or need to know more about the past of the major characters, don't read them. Apprently, the characters were developed well enough for you to have read the books about their pasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.165.105.118 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What you are describing there is not character development. I don't disagree that Eddings took numerous obvious archetypes and represented them as characters - making it very easy to feel 'familar' with them (just as he recycled wholesale various historical races). But having a character that exhibits certain traits and characteristics that you can relate to does not equate to character development. I'm not having a go at Eddings here - I actually quite enjoyed the Belgariad when I read it, although my taste has matured since then. But charitably I think even he would admit he is hardly a great writer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikejstevenson (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This is just discussing views; there's an Eddings usenet group for that (I'll fail to resist chipping in anyway by saying it would look rather unconvincing if a 7000 year old character who's been through a great deal in that time did change much over the few years of the books). Riedquat 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Its an editorial piece trashing the guy's writing, not fit for an encyclopedia. Get a source, and give a brief view of the criticisms, but most of his page is a (bad) point-by-point analysis of his books that could be easily applied to any SF/F writer.

I agree. This entry seems overly critical of his writing style. Roger 02:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree Bluap 05:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It describes exactly what he is doing - he has stated he uses these approaches himself in the Rivan Codex, which is cited as a source. Go away and read that book, then come back and dispute the content of this article with that in mind. Until then, don't react like a petulant child just because you think your favorite author is being criticised. Also, have the guts to sign your comments. Mikejstevenson 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is an opinionated piece. One tell-tale sign of this is the references in the article are poor. An example from the article: "This has generally caused a great deal of criticism of his work, with some critics and readers labelling it as child-like and repetitive" has a reference [3] that applies only to the second part of the sentence. And, reference [3] is a list of Amazon reviews, in which "some critics and readers" express a view which coincides with the article writer's. However, this very amazon.com page shows a general rating of 4 out of 5 for the book. So the reference shows that the writer is being selective in his/her observations. I am being kind by commenting on a statement with a reference. There are several other non-cited statements in the article that show a bias, possibly born of personal taste. The point is, anyone would struggle to find a completely negative (or positive) reference about Edding's work. So why the tone of the article? Make it more even-handed please.--Darrenyeats 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is a little biased against Eddings. And what is this "fairly transparent MacGuffin" that they're talking about?

A "little", is an understatement. Besides, from what I've seen, the people who criticise his books, do so for three reasons. One, the plot is a little obvious. So what! If a person dint want to know what would happen at the end of the book, they should have read a mystery book. This is high fantasy. In high fantasy, the journey is WAY more importaint that the destination. Also, in the Belgariad and the Mallorean, the little side trips and detours they take contribute to the story, and are unpredictable. Two, he copied elements and charectors from one story into others. Why does it matter. Again, i say, if this isn't what you were lookig for, you shouldn't have been reading high fantasy. I can't count the number of 'farmer boy becomes king' books i have read, and I'm not going to stop reading them just because i've already read a few. Three, Eddings is both sexist and racist in his books, specificaly the Belgariad and the Mallorean. If this is how the author wants to write, so be it. you dont have to read it if you dont like it. And besides, whos to say that, in this world, people really are like that. How can we assume anything about the people of this world wthout asking Eddings himself. So, after listing all those complaints and their answers, i come to my point. Why isn't any of THIS mentioned in the page. Because its all opinion. So, why then, does the page talk about the negative sides of Eddings writing, without also providing the opposing arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.203.24 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Um, whether or not one of the very few "citations" is accurate, it's still presented in a negative fashion, as is the whole article. I don't think it's "reacting like a petulant child" to expect an unbiased and accurate entry, which this most certainly is not. I will admit that I have not personally read the Belgariad or Malloreon, but I get the impression that the author of this article has read nothing else of Eddings' work. Despite the sweeping statements that he applies to all of the books, examples are only drawn from those first two series. The gross generalizations are ill applied to trilogies such as the Elenium and the Tamuli, which I gather from what I've read in this article, are almost completely different and original pieces of writing. Furthermore, it is in extremely poor taste to include critical comments in the opening section of the article. Sentences such as "A fairly transparent MacGuffin" do not belong in an encyclopedic entry at all, let alone in the section designed to impartially introduce us to a subject that will be examined in more depth further on. Similarly, things like office fires also belong later on, not in the heading. Overall, this is a poorly written, borderline slanderous article, which does not belong on this website. jedapo 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to make the article less of an attack piece, citing some sources and cutting some uncited and needlessly biased comments. I still think the article has a unneeeded negative slant for a beloved and bestselling fantasy author. BoosterBronze 16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

The front page is wrong, it shows Regina's song under the standalone fantasy novels section, however following the link shows it to be a Mystery non-fantasy novel

Actually, if you read Regina's Song, it starts as a non-fantasy murder mystery, but the ending (i'm not gonna give away any spoilers here) is definently a fantasy novel. --Quadraxis 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat silly psychobabble is not the same as fantasy, no matter how outrageous it is. The novel was marketed as a thriller, and was identified as such on the dust jacket. BoosterBronze 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone

This article just seems to have a dissapproving tone to it. Now admittedly I'm a huge fan of Eddings' work, but it seems that the author of the article just can't let go of Eddings' lack of acknowledgement of his wife's help. It also becomes more and more obvious as you continue reading that the author seems to have gotten most of his/her information from negative reviews and/or "Sparknotes" style sources, and has probably only actually read the Belgariad and maybe some of the Mallorean. Ahkaris (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we give co-author credit or not?

I'm going to be controversial and ask a question about other articles in this one(I'm a rebel like that :P ). Now that it's pretty much out in the open that Leigh Eddings was co-writer on all of David Eddings' books should we give credit to Leigh Eddings on the individual pages for the books and series where she doesn't get cover recognition or not? at present they mostly just state "written by David Eddings." would it be overstating her involvement to say "written by David and Leigh Eddings? Elmo 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say not. Perhaps a mention (properly cited) that later in his career Eddings acknowledges his wife's collaborations, but the authorship is a matter of record, and that was 'by David Eddings.'BoosterBronze 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As a general, rule I would assume the publisher to be correct thus, whatever the latest published copy of the books displays. A note in the introduction to articles for books where Leigh Eddings was 'legitimized' would probably be appropriate for books originally credited to only David Eddings, but as long as we don't omit the lack of credit in their earlier works (and in doing so, changing history) any appropriate mention may suffice. Psydexzerity 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was redirected here after clicking a link for Leigh Eddings, shouldn't there be something here about her if she doesn't have her own page? Either that or why even bother having a link? ~Anonymous 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.27.122

For what it's worth, I've spent considerable time in the Eddings archives. As the finding aid made by the Special Collections librarian Gay Walker states unequivocally, Leigh had only an editorial role. She read and they talked about the books, but he wrote all of them. They were in separate prisons in different parts of the state when he wrote High Hunt (yet he claimed they co-authored), and she was completely incapacitated by stokes when he wrote his later works (still published with her name on them even though she was non-verbal). There is no indication in the manuscripts themselves of her having *any* writing role whatsoever, nor does the style reflect her writing in her few surviving letters. David claims they co-authored in "The Rivan Codex," but much of this kind of thing isn't true in his various stories. He's just giving praise to his wife because he was devoted to her. In the same vein, his often repeated comments about "finding" Lord of the Rings is just a story -- he included Tolkien in his course syllabuses repeatedly so obviously knew the works and could not possibly have been surprised to "find" it later still in print only a handful of years later. As a literary scholar, I can say this is very common behaviour for authors revealed in their archives. Writers of fiction embellish and lie for a living...

Article reads like an advertisement

--68.161.190.120 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This article continues to come across as either advertising copy or the work of a total fanboi. Examples:

• 2001 brought yet more success to David and Leigh, with the publication of his third non-fantasy

• Hundreds of fan sites now exist as a tribute to his work, along with several role-playing games, fan clubs and forums dedicated to his work.

• Despite celebrating less popularity than its predecessor, ‘The Tamuli,’ proved a worthy sequel.

• Any disappointment the reader felt however was quickly averted by the publication of ‘The Redemption of Althalus,’ in 2000.

This kind of language is not appropriate to Wikipedia and should be cleaned up. --Thetrick (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the worst of the text and separated it from the bibliography. However, it is still pretty bad and totally uncited. More work is needed. --Thetrick (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Dreamers" does not describe the series

Quoted from the article: Despite the luke warm anticipation awaiting the publication of ‘The Younger Gods,’ David Eddings still remains one of the most respected and successful authors of modern fantasies. Hundreds of fan sites now exist as a tribute to his work, along with several role-playing games, fan clubs and forums dedicated to his work. Heavy metal band Elenium not only derived their name from his work, but also base most of their songs around the fantastical sagas that David and his wife create together.

This does not at all elaborate on the actual novel and would better be suited in another part of the article. 90.230.54.138 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A start on the fictional locations in Eddings' work, anyone else want to work on it?

I started a page in my user space about the fictional locations in Eddings' works. Anyone else want to add something, think it's a bad/good idea, anything? I don't know what I am going to do with it. Even though it is in my user space, fiddle with it. If I don't get a response soon, I may just have it deleted. - LA @ 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Severe cleanup

I've removed basically the entire section on the Belgariad and the Malloreon. At first glance, it's almost entirely pulled from http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/David_Eddings. Even if they pulled their text from this article (and there's a chance they did), the text that was here was pretty awful. No article on Wikipedia should have the following text:

The Belgariad, however, remains a classic fantasy to its core. There is magic, a mysterious and powerful artefact to be sought in the form of Cthrag Yaska (Or the Orb of Aldur) and a quest.

The entire section was filled with pure OR text. It looks like it came from a book review or something. I'm going to think about how to rewrite that section, but until then, I think it just needs to be links to the main pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters

The section on "characters" mentions that Eddings' writing (and stereotyping in particular) has been construed by some people to be akin to (or at least bordering on) racism. The link that supports this claim goes to a somewhat less than professional site, whereby an apparently random guy named Mike gives his opinion on a particular series of Eddings novels.

While I'm all for people writing their own reviews of books and movies they've read, I hardly think any old guy's blog counts as a reputable enough source to be used as a reference on Wikipedia. In addition, the reviewer hardly does himself any credit as far as legitimacy is concerned when in at least one place he refers to the books as "films".

Whilst I agree with the "bordering on racism" comment (not personally, but I do agree that some people might feel that way), I think the reference itself is not suitable and should be replaced with another. Thoughts? Does anyone have a more reputable source that supports this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianbrenner (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

Is there any real benefit to having "Works" and Bibliography? They appear to just be the same data presented differently, and can (should) be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.112.45 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Death?

He's dead, all right; see his sister-in-law's Facebook :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriciaT (talk • contribs) 00:44, June 3, 2009

Seeing internet chatter about DE's death, including the bottom first one (unsigned and with a smiley face) and this --JustJimWillDo (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And this. Pretty convincing. --JustJimWillDo (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

more --JustJimWillDo (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Eddings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070126/NEWS/101260101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Hello, New to all of this but I have added reference to his Cherokee ancestry. (James Thomas Eddings srsos@hotmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsos01 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Eddings/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I don't like parts of this article. It contains opinions about David Eddings' writing which are biased. Either remove the negative opinions (and limit the article to factual information) or provide a more balanced set of opinions. If any positive or negative opinions are included, provide references and make it clear what statement has a reference. For example, the following passage from the article: "This has generally caused a great deal of criticism of his work, with some critics and readers labelling it as child-like and repetitive.[3]" The first part certainly gives the impression of general criticism. Reference [3] is a list of Amazon reviews, in which "some critics and readers" express a view which coincides with the article writer's. However, this very amazon.com page shows a general rating of 4 out of 5 for the book and many positive reviews too. Why isn't this reflected in the article's statement or statements (it's ambiguous) using the reference? Following immediately on: "However, some readers find it easier to read and less 'cerebral' than more traditional epic fantasy, because it allows some immediate familiarity with the new races." This seems to say those who like Eddings do so because they like dumbed-down writing. I don't think this counts as unbiased, factual or balanced information. "Eddings has been described as taking a simplistic, lego-like approach[citation needed] to the creation of worlds, races, and characters, an approach used in many SF and fantasy sub-genres (most notably Star Trek)." Again, a negative viewpoint not balanced out with a positive. I'm confident that there are many people unimpressed with Edding's writing, but there are at least as many confirmed fans. I can provide a reference for this: just read the article writer's own reference [3]. Or visit any other forum discussing Eddings. And my point is this: a casual reader of this wikipedia article won't get a sense that there are two significant and popular camps of thought on Eddings. They won't get a sense that general opinion is polarized on Eddings (it is). They will just get the impressions of the negative camp. Thanks, --Darrenyeats 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I also agree, if you are going to have negative thoughts than at least have some positive ones. His reading may not be for every one but many people enjoy it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.252.31 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Eddings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718230708/https://www.denverpost.com:80/news/ci_12856825 to http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12856825

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Eddings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035842/http://www.farris.co.uk/books/archive/starlog.htm to http://www.farris.co.uk/books/archive/starlog.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12856825

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is everyone so content on David Eddings being a child abuser?

Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleamian2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Gleamian2: I would like to give better proof. One of our family members was his adopted daughter. She was 18 months when she and her 4 year old brother were removed from the home. There are numerous newspapers which give an account of the investigation and trials.

Why aren't the sources reliable? I tried to look up the publications to see if they were considered credible during this time but found limited information on them. Were they considered fringe or biased publications? Millahnna (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Gleamian2: I could turn this question around and ask why you're so focused on removing this information instead. This was sourced to a local newspaper with a fairly detailed account, so simply crying "not reliable" won't cut it. You need to say why you think it's not reliable. Moreover, your continued reasoning that the name might be a coincidence is flimsy. If it were just one person, that might carry some weight, but how many such people had the same name and were married to each other and were born the same year. Newspapers are secondary sources, which we prefer to things like court records, which are primary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the text is retained, "He later said this was because of a failure to receive a pay raise, but it coincided with the year in jail for both David and Leigh." should come out, I think. The pay raise comment I know he said in a few interviews so that could probably be sourced. But the timing commentary is original research. Millahnna (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

He and my adopted mother did abuse. I still have dreams. They stole 6 1/2 years of my life fighting to keep me. If you want the proof I have it including the lady who saved me by reporting the abuse. Sawyer Faith (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

One newspaper from back in the late 60's is reliable? Give me a break. Whatever. I'm out. See ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleamian2 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No, not one paper. Several sources. Trying to whitewash the history of convicted child abusers will not be tolerated by the encyclopedia. You have been vandalizing David and Leigh Edding's articles for some time and got off really lightly with a 36 hour ban. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said at the 3rr Ani about this, my intent with this edit was to make sure that if this content is removed, we stop removing the parts we actually need. The blind removal of the entire paragraph was deleting a reference we use elsewhere in the article, and a sentence that should be easy to source (reddit thread linked in top section on this page has links to several secondary sources we can use to ref the statement). I only saw this whole mess in passing (and rather regret stepping in TBH) and that is my only concern as it pertains to the content dispute. This way, if the content has to be removed, it can be done easily without removing things that were breaking other parts of the page. Millahnna (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am the adopted girl Kathleen I have all the proof you need to prove what they did. I even kniw who turned them in and reported the abuse. Sawyer Faith (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Detail on child abuse

I'm not sure of the wikipedia standard for this, but do we need to detail what sort of abuse it was? I immediately assumed sexual abuse (becuase that's what is normally reported in the media), but then it seems to be violent abuse? Like belting a child/corporal punishment? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I also made this assumption, and had to actually read the newspaper article to find out that they apparently kept the boy in a cage in the basement and rather severely beat him. A short note in the article would be welcome, I think.Taurik (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a link to physical abuse, which will hopefully make this clearer while avoiding making the entry a lot longer. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please contact me I am the adopted daughter Kathleen. I have more proof. Sawyer Faith (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sawyer Faith, please read WP:NOTNEWS. Avishai11 (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)