Talk:Kevin J. Anderson

message: What's up with it?  No controversy, it reads like an unofficial fan bio and not an encyclopedic article.  Is there that much of a press black-out on him?  Does he protect his own reputation that much because his writing sucks?  Needs WWWWAAAAAYYYYYY more unbiased information. Zeelog —Preceding unsigned comment added by  76.164.37.128 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone has controversy about them. Unless you have some specific info with strong and reliable sources to back it up, there's simply no need to have a "controversy" section. As for his writing, please limit your comments to how to improve the article, and keep to yourself personal attacks against the subject of the article. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read some to see how awful his stuff is. There is a reason he is a serial writer, and its not because he is good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.42.146 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read a fair amount of his work, and while it's not all the best writing in the world, I enjoy reading his work. That's neither here nor there, however, as the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve this article. If you have nothing productive to add toward that purpose, then please refrain from posting your opinions on his writings as they don't matter one whit here (and neither do mine, for that matter). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You really ought to create an account (or login) rather than signing some random editor's name when not logged in. The editor in question hasn't made an edit here since 2007. As for the alleged controversy surrounding Anderson's work, if it's next to impossible to find, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't exist. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This article is a white-wash.  Anderson is despised by fans and critics alike and there is no shortage of "sources" to "prove" it if you look.  An author who has done so much damage to treasured works would obviously have gotten a lot of negative commentary but NONE has trickled through to the Wiki entry?  NONE??  The conclusion is clear -- this is yet another Wikipedia article where activist editors are protecting the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said at Talk:Brian Herbert, I've seen several distruntled fans make similar posts since 1999, but no one has yet to provide any of these volumnious sources that supposedly decry the Dune prequels. I will jump at the chance to implement such sources into related Wikipedia articles if you will provide them. But it is typical fanboy trolling for an IP to cry conspiracy and to complain about how articles are lacking without actually trying to make improvements.— TAnthonyTalk 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: In the past, there has been discussions about how to handle criticism of KJA (or any author, really). We do not have an aggregator, like Rotten Tomatoes, to give a pseudo-objective score, nor are there a lot of proper reviews out there. I think we should include something in the article regardless; as it stands, there is nothing on the controversy with Star Wars or Dune fans, who have been vocal about his additions to the existing canon universes. Lucas has a simple solution to the question of canon and quality (ie. he does not give a shit), while Frank is dead... The former is acceptance, the latter is not - yet the article has no discussion on neither quality nor canon issues. It should have - it is noteworthy knowledge about KJA, which any fan of Dune, Star Wars and X-files (to name a few "franchises") would have an opinion on.
Now, to be perfectly clear as to my bias, I believe the man to be an untalented, work-for-hire hack. That he has handed out points for posting positive remarks and reviews, redeemable for merchandise, is a known fact and it should not work to his credit when compiling an article on him. It should really be pointed out, though.
My recommendations for the article and a possible, consensus-driven rewrite are below. I hope interested parties will comment on each individually. Lundse (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean about NPOV, this bio article lists his many works but does not praise or vilify him. This is not the only author article at Wikipedia which needs expansion with criticism from reliable sources, perhaps you'd like to contribute to it rather than troll the talk page? — TAnthonyTalk 21:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism revisited.