|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
[edit] Note about this talk page
This talk page is for discussions about improving the article. Additionally, please observe WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This applies to this talk page as well as the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "What of Earth" and reputation
Not sure why the "What of Earth" section takes up so much of the article -- from what appears, it seems to have been a nasty but somewhat minor publishing squabble resolved 30 years ago. Also, there should be something on his general reputation -- some of of his early works such as Macroscope and Rings of Ice etc. are fairly well-respected, but a very significant number of people among hard-core science fiction fandom regard him as having cashed in on somewhat puerile cookie-cutter works of little ultimate value (such as most of the Xanth, and Apprentice Adept books, etc.) -- it was a regular topic of discussion on Usenet's "rec.arts.sf.written" whenever Anthony's name came up, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009
- Concur. The discussion of But What of Earth seems like a clear undue weight issue. john k (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it down and attempted to improve the wording. —Torchiest talk/edits 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed this section entirely, as it was lacking in sources of any kind. Perhaps it wasn't much of a BLP issue, as it didn't reflect too badly on Anthony himself (and the two people it did reflect badly on, Roger Elwood and Robert Coulson, are both dead), but even so I don't think it belongs in the article without some kind of source to demonstrate that it was significant enough to be worth mentioning. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify that the removed material reflected poorly on Elwood, not on Buck Coulson. Buck was not accused of being at fault for what Elwood told him; just of edits that Anthony didn't like (a question of artistic judgement, not of ethics). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (knew Buck; knows Juanita)
[edit] Reputation among SF fans
There still should be some way to indicate that his general reputation among regular science-fiction readers has declined precipitously beginning around 1976 or 1977... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Also, something about some of his adult men with v. under-aged girl sex scenes...
Like in TATHAM MOUND, where the adult male protagonist has (frighteningly described) sex with a 10-year-old (her idea, of course); or in FIREFLY, with an even more detailed pedophilic sex scene, described by the five-year-old girl (again, the whole thing was instigated by her...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please check the archives before raising this again - Talk:Piers_Anthony/Archive_1#Pedophilia. Ash (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
