| Revision as of 18:37, 25 July 2006 editWerthead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,137 edits →Introduction← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:32, 12 April 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,824,503 editsm Remove unknown param from WP Dyslexia: importanceTag: AWB | ||
| (414 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| ==Introduction== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=no|listas=Goodkind, Terry|1= | |||
| I have added the nessary citation link from the "Verifiable source" for the number of books sold world wide. Though that number was published back on 02/16/05 and the number is much larger now, I'm comfortable with that number. mystar] 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|class=B|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|NE=yes|NE-importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Novels|importance=mid|sword-of-truth-task-force=yes|sword-of-truth-importance=Top}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Dyslexia}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Disability}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | |||
| {{Annual readership|days=90}} | |||
| {{Archive box|*]}} | |||
| == Book standard link == | |||
| Thank you. I was wondering if you could clear up another issue here, though. The recently-released press release about Sam Raimi's interest in filming The Sword of Truth series is quoted as saying that the series has sold 10 million copies in 20 languages. This would seem to conflict with the above figure. Are you aware of an explanation for this discrepency?--] 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've looked through the two articles in reference to the miniseries, and the only bit of info I can find that is in the "Book standard" link and not the "Comingsoon.net" is the following info: | |||
| :"Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan." | |||
| Why, yes I am aware of an explanation :)and the fact that it annoys you to no end is just bonus! | |||
| ] | |||
| Aside from that, the information that I can see is essentially identical, and the comingsoon.net article actually has more detail than the Book standard. The only info in the above quote is about specific books, and though it could be on those pages I don't see a need for the info in this one. ] nutshell is ''Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article'', which was why I removed it in the first place (i.e. if the info is already there, why a second link?). If there is any further info that I've missed in the link, it's better added to the page and the Book standard tacked on as a reference, as per ''If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first'', also from WP:EL. | |||
| Erm...and what is this explanation?--] 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Review== | |||
| I have added a just released review of Terry Goodkind. | |||
| ] 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am not picking a fight by removing the link. As I said above - WP:EL recommends keeping external links to a minimum and including the information as a reference if possible. Since there is already a reference for this information on the page it is unnecessary duplication. Further, since the info is essentially identical, it probably came from the same press release. There's no point having it twice that I can see - what is the justification for including duplicate information on the page? ] 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And I quote "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are merit able, accessible and appropriate to the article: | |||
| Never heard of Darken and Demmin as Russian names. And I lived in the USSR for 18 years. I suppose this must be a misunderstanding originating in some lousy translation. --] 08:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I see merit. You do not. It is another source and has more info. It is not a problem that it remains. It violates no policy; it is not anything that you read. Seeing as how in your own words you cannot stand Goodkind or his works...that leaves only one other possablity? So again I ask that you stop nit picking to start a fight. It is not the link itself (Seeing as how its been there for a good long time...), but rather me is the only reason you want to remove it. As you have said to others you'll agree with them, but not mystar. | |||
| :I see many other precedence of similar information being provided on other pages as external links, so again, having the links is not a violation, and is in fact allowable. You have made countless statements since your starting here, you hate Goodkind and wish to smear his name (and mine), so it is more than abundantly clear that the only reason you do edit Goodkind's pages is to try and nit pick and start a fight. As much as you abhor Goodkind one can easily make that leap< As we can indeed see it is not a voilation at all ] 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Russian names == | |||
| ::It is another source with the same information, coming from the same press release - it's even got the same quote. What is the extra info and merit that the link you keep reverting has? I couldn't find it, nothing that relates to this page. A short statement of this 'important information' rather than another accusation of bad faith would shut me up. And if it is adding extra info, it should be a ''reference'', not an external link. And it is the 'minimum' of the EL policy that I'm pointing to - having an extra link that says the same thing as one of the references is not a minimum, it is superfluous. It may be meritalbe, accessible and appropriate, but it is duplication. This link adds nothing to the reader that is not already there. The reason I removed it last week was because of edit, which brought my attention to the external links section. Notice that I did not try to remove the interview information because it adds to the page something that couldn't be in a reference but does provide something valuable. It is an appropriate external link. | |||
| "Demmin" could be a misinterpretation of "Demyan", very rare Russian name. And there are no names that look like "Darken". | |||
| ::If you see precedents in other pages, perhaps those links should be removed. Which pages did you see it on, I'll have a look and let you know if I think it should be removed for the same reason, or explain why I think it's valuable to keep. ] 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And let you terrorize those pages? I think not. | |||
| ==Career== | |||
| As I said it does nto say it is forbiden or cannot stay.] 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (moved from ] | |||
| Thats odd, I see where I clearly stated it was due to "content" and that it is allowable under the very policy that you listed. Again I ask you to stop trying to create drama where none exists. WP:EL clearly states that it is "ok" but to be careful not to add too much, as I addressed on the talk page. You seem to be under the impression that only your opinion has any validity. Please try not to engage in a witch hunt ] 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have not addressed what content within the link is useful to the article. From what I can see, there is nothing in the external link which adds to the article. There is no added content and added benefit to having the link in the page, it is just taking up memory. You say it adds content to the article, but I can't see what it is adding. And if it is useful content, it should be integrated as a reference. The reason I think it should be removed is because I can't see where it could go as a reference, barring a ''second'' reference for the SoT being turned into a series. The policy says meritable links. Because the information is already covered in the 'press release' reference, the external link '''has no merit''', it's just duplication. ] 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Work == | |||
| == External link == | |||
| This page needs major work. I am going to commit some time to it, and I hope others will do the same. | |||
| Here is a breakdown of the verbatim material from the coming soon link and the book standard link: | |||
| :I agree with whoever said the above. You can not use the author's own website to justify the greatness of a book. That's like asking Exxon to defend their environmental agenda. Obviously the author thinks his stuff is great. If you are friends with Terry Goodkind, or perhaps the author himself, maybe you should think about letting someone who is slightly more objective edit the page. Provide (verifiable) facts, but not opinions. And in general, the author's word isn't the best source of information - if he was a formula one racer, find an independent verification. I can say I'm an astronaut or have psychic powers, but until someone shows a picture of me in space or I've got a million dollar cheque from James Randi, it's just my opinion. Anyway, I also edited out most of the back and forth in the discussion page, I tried to leave in the relevant stuff that was actually a discussion or a call for more content. | |||
| http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878399 | |||
| :Career section | |||
| :1 Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, and his producing partner Joshua Donen, will develop a miniseries based on Terry Goodkind’s bestselling “Sword of Truth” series. Production will begin within a year, with Wizard’s First Rule, the first book in the series. | |||
| :I removed the bestselling author from the career section, as the only reference was his personal webpage. I removed the 'driven to excel' part because it seems pretty irrelevant to the article. I also changed the grammar a bit to clean it up. I took out the 'artist first and foremost' because that is the author's opinion, not verifiable fact. Plus, who cares? | |||
| :2 Goodkind, who has previously turned down film offers, was struck by Raimi and Donen’s idea for a miniseries. | |||
| :3 “It’s a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent and ability,” Goodkind said in a statement released today. “Given Sam’s sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini series will be a watershed event.” | |||
| :4 Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan. | |||
| :5 Raimi is currently wrapping Spider-Man 3, with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. | |||
| ----- | |||
| http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15750 | |||
| :A "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and his producing partner Joshua Donen have optioned rights for Terry Goodkind's bestselling "Sword of Truth" adventure series, published by Tor Books. | |||
| :B Having been approached by Hollywood a number of times over the past decade, Goodkind was never convinced that his 400,000 word novels could be successfully compressed into worthwhile feature films. In a meeting at the author's home, the renowned director and producer instead conceived of a groundbreaking mini-series. Within two hours Goodkind was sold on the concept and negotiations commenced. Ten months later the deal was finally concluded. | |||
| :C "It's a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent, and ability," Goodkind said. "Given Sam's sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini-series will be a watershed event." | |||
| :D All of Goodkind's novels have been international bestsellers. Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print. The "Sword of Truth" series began with "Wizard's First Rule" in 1994. The 10th novel in the series, "Phantom," is on sale now. The 11th and final volume is under contract and will be published in 2008. | |||
| :E Raimi and Donen hope to begin production of the opening mini-series, "Wizard's First Rule," within the next year, to be followed by ensuing volumes of the epic novels. The development process will begin while Raimi completes Spider-Man 3. | |||
| :1 and A are the same information. | |||
| :Influence section | |||
| :2 and B are the same information. | |||
| :I took out most of this because the second sentence starts with a 'weasel word', then goes on again to talk about what the author thinks. Again, wiki is for encyclopedic stuff, not a chance for the author to sound off. That's what his webpage is for. Plus, it makes TG sound very extreme, and more than a bit crazy. | |||
| :3 and C are the same quote | |||
| :4 and D are different information about book publishing. Of the 2, the coming soon is the better info for the TG page as it's got information about the number of languages and copies in print. | |||
| :5 and E are the same information. | |||
| '''There is nothing in the book standard link that is not in the coming soon link in greater detail.''' There is no reason to have this link in the external links. Can anyone see any reason to include the book standard link, based on this comparison of information? ] 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Fantasy author or novelist section | |||
| :I took out the 'changed the face of fantasy' bit 'cause it's just his opinion, and this kind of thing can only be seen 10-20 years after the fact. I did leave in the 'his novels dealt primarily with human thought and emotion' bit because he is talking about his novels. Of course, since most novels deal with human thought and emotion, this is kind of redundant, but whatever. I also added the second paragraph, 'cause it seems pretty obvious. | |||
| How wonderful! You see, as there is differing information on each link there is no problem keeping them both. As I've stated in previous statements, there is not problem in any wikipedia policy in having these. I'm sure what with all your heavy lifting and exhastive brutual editing of so many pages in need of help, this is a minor and frivilous item. So again as I've stated while some material may well be ooverlaping, they do haev different material and that does not violate any policy. ] 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all, ]. Some consider it irritating, and it's really not necessary; when the page gets too long, it can be ] or ]. | |||
| :Read more closely, particularly the first sentence of the conclusion of my last reply, now in '''bold'''. Allow me to re-state. ''There is nothing in the bookstandard link that is not in the comingsoon link in '''greater detail'''''. The information may be ''worded'' differently, but the ''content'' is the same. Just because it does not ''directly'' violate a policy does not mean it should be on the page. I am asking as plainly as I can: you say "they do haev different material" - what material is different? Please tell me what material you see covered in the bookstandard link that is not covered in the comingsoon link that is in any way germane to the article. If you don't tell me, I'm going to remove the link again because it serves no purpose on the page. Please show me the relevant information that means the bookstandard link should stay up. ] 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for your article edits, you're thinking in the right direction, but I do have concerns. It's a bit silly to remove the "bestselling author" mention, since he is one; a better source is necessary, and I'll add one shortly, but generally instead of removing accurate content that lacks a good source you should just request such a source. "Driven to excel" is a bit excessive, and I'll remove it again myself shortly. "Artist first and foremost" is indeed the author's opinion, which is why it's labelled as such; I think it's worth inclusion, as it presents some of his perspective, which I think is of clear relevance to an article on the man. It needs a specific source, though, as I don't see anything along that line on any of the cited sources. | |||
| :Let me try a different way - how does the link enhance the article? How does having the book standard link add value to the article beyond the coming soon link? If the bookstandard link were removed, what would readers miss out on that is not captured in the coming soon link? ] 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the "Influence" section, the claim of preaching also needs a source; I'll tag it shortly. Again, I think Goodkind's own comments on his work are part of a good encyclopedic article on the man. It's not our responsibility to keep him from looking extreme, but to accurately reflect the verifiable facts about him. | |||
| ==Fantasy Author Category== | |||
| ::"Changed the face of fantasy" once more falls into the relevance of the author's opinions on the genesis and function of his work. Deleting his opinions is not good encyclopedic policy; they're as relevant to the article as any commentary. Your second paragraph about fitting conventions, while true, is not really our judgment to make, and smacks of ]. ] 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| CLAIMS NOT TO BE A FANTASY AUTHOR THEREFOR ETHE ATG SHOULD BE REMOVED!!!! ] 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While Goodkind considers himself to be "more of a novelist" he also acknowledges that he writes fantasy. The issue is largely semantics but nothing is harmed by including him in the "fantasy author" category as he is both percived (and marketed) as a fantasy author and has said he is as much. I will be reinserting the category and would appreciate it if you would no longer unilateraly remove it. ] 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Symbolism == | |||
| ::okay fine. ] 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Until further notice, I have removed the Symbolism section of this page. Most of this article is speculation and very little of it is correct, in addition, the article is poorly written. For example, the article states that Subtractive Magic sybolizes "the loss of freedom. Subtractive is viewed as evil because it subtracts freedom." Not only is that poor grammar, it is simply not true; subtractive magic is vital to Goodkind's world, and Richard Rahl himself frequently uses it. In fact, the entire book of "Naked Empire" is dedicated to the fact that things like Subtractive Magic and killing, if justified are good, while peace and submission, if unjustified are bad. I can hardly believe you've read through his books and not picked this up by now. You also make a claim that "The central square in the end of the first and second books may also be references to Red Square in St. Petersburg." ] is in ], and I doubt very much that Goodkind was refering to Russia when he created Da'Hara. Da'Harans are traditionally blue eyed, blonde haired warriors (Generally an Aryan trait), and the Da'Haran culture is highly patriarchial, not generally a trait seen in Communist Rhetoric. In my opinion,Da'Hara represents Nazi Germany, and yes the old world certainly represents the Soviet Union and communism. There are many other inaccuracies included in this text, and therefore I am scrapping the entire thing. However, ] symbolism is very important in regards to Terry Goodkind's works, so I do intend to add a rewritten version of said article. Thanks, | |||
| --] 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| While Goodkind's work is more than the general "fantasy" than is typically seen in those genera, it is nevertheless sole as a fantasy novel. Having the term "Epic Fantasy" is in no way demeaning nor detrimental to Goodkind or how he and his fans perceive his Novels. While it is true they are heralded as, philosophical works and having deep romantic themes, they are more than simple "Epic Fantasy", yet they are sold as such, and therefore should be listed in the category they are marketed. As Neofreak says Terry does state that he is not writing fantasy, he also states that he is using the term in a generalization, and goes further to state that he does acknowledge that his works are fantasy. That does not negate the fact that the deeper elements are there and remain. ] 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OKAY i get it shut up!!! ] 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hypnotist? == | |||
| I think something needs to be added here, as the wiki is used as a review or explanation for the theme of the book. Perhaps editting may be performed. In any case, it is pretty significant that there has been a conflict between staple readers of the sword of truth series and Terry Goodkind, due to a misunderstanding of the entire theme of the series. ] 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I erased the section that said he was a hypnotist. I've been a long fan of his and I've never heard of him working as a hypnotist. Also, let me know if anyone has any projects in construction for this page; I'm a massive fan of Terry and I would like to collaborate with anyone on restructuring this page. --IAlan | |||
| :Any material about that conflict would need to be have reliable and significant sources, as one of Misplaced Pages's core policies prevents the addition of unpublished material, or ]. The material you have added to the article, while it may or may not be accurate, lacks such sources, and reads like an individual's commentary rather than an encyclopedic overview of existing opinion. Unless someone can produce references to support your analysis (which, given how thoroughly such topics have been hashed over in the past, seems unlikely), it will have to be removed from the article. If the conflict between Goodkind and some of his readers is in fact significant, it will have been mentioned by some ]. ] 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the reversion. I had previously removed a section that stood out as especially unfounded, but it does appear that the edits after that revision were original research. Sorry, Jasonred. ] 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI: ] == | |||
| Terry Goodkind worked for a short time as a clinical therapist, which included the application s of Hypnotism as therapy. I will be adding the proper references shortly. ] 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Politics / Influence == | |||
| ==Formula One== | |||
| And where did this claim come from - if it is possible to substantiate this claim please revert the edit - but I know of no such race driver and a ] racecar driver?? ] 09:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages, but imo there should be some mention - beyond simply noting his admiration for Rand and her perspective - of his hardline right-wing politics and it's appearance in his novels. There are very strong right-wing themes and perspectives woven into his major series. It's blatant, unrelenting, and i don't understand why, if there is to be a mention of his political perspective at all, that it is not more clearly noted. He is rabid in his support for the American right-wing, and it features strongly in his 'The Sword of Truth' series. <br /> Also, any 'Influences' section is dramatically lacking if it does not mention Goodkind's borderline plagiarism of Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. I don't have the time or energy to provide examples or go into any greater detail, but perhaps if someone else shares my opinion / observation they could elaborate here. <br />The guy is a rip-off artist, and an ideological hardliner that seeds his 'fantasy' novels with right-wing propaganda. Imo, the 'Influences' section, if nothing else, should note this more clearly. Thanks for reading, and regards to all. <br /> Mike <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hi, I got that info from a biography posted of him on the Terry Goodkind forums prepared by Ron Wilson (Mystar) and A.D. Hough (Addicted), acknowledged personal friends of Terry. Here's the quote: "He took up interests in such areas as marine and wildlife art, cabinet making, violin making and rare artifact restoration, and believe it or not, he also trained and drove as a Formula One racecar driver. To this day Terry can be seen racing about on the back roads of a small desert town in his super charged Ferrari when he feels the need…the need for speed!" And here's the thread: http://www.terrygoodkind.net/forums/showthread.php?t=638 I don't really know if it's true, but that's where I got it. | |||
| Being a person who reads many different authors and who occasionally ready wikipedia to learn a little about the authors I read, I notice that when an author writes fiction that is politically conservative, some person complains. Not so when a writer uses his pen/voice to espouse liberal views. Just an interesting point. Makes me wonder. Why? Is the perception that people are going to jump to a political view they didn't hold before, because they read a book? I couldn't care less what Mr. Goodkind's political views are. No more do I care how the writers of the other books on my reading list voted in the last election. I read to learn as well as be intertained and that means reading fiction and non-fiction from writers with political and philosophical views that span the gamut of viewpoints. Goodkind bothers me no more than does King, Jordan, Perry, Funke, Ross, Perry or Asimov. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Ok, I can see you have a source. But is that source reliable. ''Trained as'' I have no way of checking that! "Drove as" this would normally mean that he drove in at least one Formula One race, which I can find no reference for. It could mean that he drove as a team's test driver, which again is more difficult to check. My guess this is one of those apocryphal stories that gets a life of it's own. That he might have an old Formula One car which he drives, again is not immpossible, in fact with his royalties quite possible! I believe this statment should be left out until a verifiable source can be found. Thanks for checking. ] : please contact me on my ] : 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "right-wing". Terry Goodkind is a self-proclaimed objectivist, and these ideals come across quite clearly in his novels, but there's a big difference between Objectivism and Conservatism, which I assume is what you mean. As far as comparisons to Robert Jordan's work, yes, there are many similarities, but to my knowledge there hasn't been any scholarly comparisons between the two series. And that is the point I'm working towards: You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but without some ], then your opinions are just ]. | |||
| Yes this ia a true fact. Goodkind did Train as a Formula One Driver. If anyon efeels the need to add this to the page I can provide proofs from Goodkind himself. ] 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Feel free to add to the influences section, but be aware that any contributions that don't have objective, third party citations will be removed. - ] (]) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::One problem is there is no indication in the article of the darker themes of the Goodkind's books, including repetitive themes about torture and rape. --] (]) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::] must have already been published by a ]. If you are aware of such material, ], or else direct other editors to it on this talk page. But just because you or I notice it in the reading of his works, or it appears on someones blog or fansite, that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. -- ] 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: TheRedPenOfDoom, a warning about the explicit nature of Goodkind's Sword of Truth books is very appropriate. I thought I had a strong stomach until I stumbled across the vile imagery in Goodkind's books. With a mere pen, Goodkind's artful implications have succeeded in portraying vile savagery in a way that no movie or television program has ever achieved. This constitutes the exceptional character to Goodkind's work that distinguishes it from that of the other more-moderate fantasy authors. I doubt I would let a child of mine read the Goodkind books until s/he was in their late teens. ] (]) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Many of these include blogs and forums, however many if not most reviews (even if favourable) include a warning about the graphic nature of the novels. For example: http://www.sfreviews.net/wizardrule.html, "The violence gets a bit excessive after a certain point.", http://www.allreaders.com/Topics/info_533.asp?BSID=159891806 ""Sword of Truth is a poorly written, highly derivative story about a forest guide who is given the titular weapon. It has an excessive, prolonged section of torture. Redundant writing and a lack of originality plague this book." Rebecca Davis, Resident Scholar ", "Style Accounts of torture and death? - very explicit references to deaths and torture", http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/jul/10/british-fantasy-awards-michael-moorcock "even the progressively crazier, more polemic, frankly dreadful Terry Goodkind. I ploughed through 12-book series – I like to know the ending – and yes, I have read the bizarro chicken sequence from Soul of the Fire.".] (]) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It is undeniably true that Goodkind weaves his political beliefs into his Sword of Truth books. Indeed, ] is little more than a fantasised version of ]'s ] (along with a bit of ]). However, would anyone be complaining if Goodkind was feeding us the usual left-wing rhetoric that most authors wantonly ram down our throats? ] (]) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I will be adding the citations and re introducing the information shortly ] 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Propaganda is incorrect wording. He is not advertising his political views. He is expressing them. He is not doing so to instigate violence or hatred or to sway a large population to his favor which is what propaganda is for. He has every right to say what ever he wants. It is his book. Keep in mind fiction writing is a work of art no different than a painting. If you don't like the color of the sky in a painting you don't tell the artist to redo it you simply don't buy it. If you don't like them then you can choose not to read them. As far as plagerizing goes I must laugh at this because I just went to the article for Paolini's Eragon. I only read the first book and had to stop because it was so irksome to read something from a kid who plagerized every single book he read. You can actually see the clear matches between things in his book and any other fantasy book. In fact I haven't read a fantasy book that he hasnt ripped off yet. To bad somebody couldn't write an article about children becoming authors before they actually know anything about life. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Philosophical Views! == | |||
| :Well, I think people complain about Goodkind's politics because, unlike Stephen King or any of the others mentioned he pretty much rubs his readers' nose in it, with his strawmen arguments, endless political speaches and less than fair criticism at the left wing. Shades of gray do not exist in Goodkind's world -if you take his bizarre morals into account that is. | |||
| "Also, when his novels were accused of being a bit "too preachy" by a fan during the same chat, Goodkind explained to those present who had criticized his writing style with such harsh criticism of the base philosophy and the moral and ethical values contained within the series, saying that they were not fans, and that they hated that his novels existed. He also claimed "their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good... These people hate what is good because it is good." We have seen the full effect and thuth of this fact by the attacks against the values with in the series, against the moral and ethicial set the characters uphold. | |||
| :Besides, and most importantly: wether you're a left winger or not the ideas he defends in his books are pretty questionable to say the least. Mr. Goodkind has stated in interviews that Richard Rahl is (obviously) his alter ego and responds to certain situations the same way he would respond. So in other words Goodkind advocates: killing people who preach left wing ideals (and keeping their ears as trophies), killing unarmed pacifists who object to war, attacking other nation's civilians and kicking nasty children in the jaw(!) | |||
| :I really don't see why people ask why his political views are an issue. I personally think they're downright sickening. | |||
| <br /> | |||
| : | |||
| :Can somebody please tell me what's not downright fascist about all this? | |||
| :His less than fantastic writing skills (subtility was never his strongest point), plot holes, numerous BDSM scenes (gratuitous torture and rape), arrogant statement that he "doesn't write fantasy" (yeah right!), and let's say the 'remarkable similiarities' in his books to Robert Jordan's makes it all even less bearable for me (as, fo the unfain compairsions to Eragon, keep in mind that unlike the boy who wrote Eragon, Goodkind is actually a grown man, ripping off another author for 11 books instead of just one). | |||
| : - Joe Dharma. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::I'm sort of at a loss here, the above comments are so mindbogglingly ironic...the words that spring to mind are "hamfisted propaganda" and "lies". "Subtility" (sic) obviously isn't their strong suit either. I'm only partway through the series, so I'm not sure which specific incidents the above poster twisted and misrepresented to fit their point, but the "nasty" girl kept a "playmate" (read:Officially Designated Physical, Mental and Verbal Abuse Victim) and was being groomed, and indeed aspired to be a mass murderer. And unless I'm mistaken the "pacifists" in question will turn out to be a violent bloodthirsty mob incited by the REAL Fascists, and resemble the angry villagers from Frankenstein, rather than something Gandhi would recognize as in line with pacifism. I'm sure there is room for a critique of his work, but based on facts, not on convenient exaggerations, lies, and what appears to be hatred of the man himself. ] (]) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I see the mention of his Randian views are in the lede but never in to main article. The lede should summarise the article. Also, is there any support for the fact that these views are so notable that they belong in the lede? It seems to be simply a piece of trivia about him. ] (]) 07:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| With these comments and several others, Goodkind effectively drew a line in the sand, implying that you were either with him or against him....." | |||
| : OK, I somehow missed the section in the main article about Rand. But my point about its notability for the lede still stands. ] (]) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| --[[U | |||
| :Uhm, he's an Objectivist. What do you expect? ] 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| :Actually I don't disagree they are not too preachy. What I object to is when people try and hide the message that they are pushing, so that you are potentially taking on the ideas subliminally. At least Terry is upfront, it is obvious but not overpowering. Personally I don't agree with Terry's "Objectivism" but he does write a "Stonking" garn. :: ] : ] 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6573502.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| You show your true color when you use such harsh and verbal abuse as crazy and nut case. While you may not like Goodkind or his works, lowering yourself to bring your dislike to a personal low by such an action. You have blatantly misinturpited the interview and Terry's words that is the offense. You are, as you said you would do on your website Malazan Forums, write up something devious to stir up things a bit. While you may well think Goodkind is saying something, you are taking it out of context and making his words fit your scenario. I am a good friend of Goodkind's and I can assure you that the only controversy is in your head. You have no right to try and make Misplaced Pages your soapbox simply because you don't like Goodkind. ] 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Whatever their motivations, the links seem to be genuine. I don't really care how wonderful a friend he is to you: he actually said the things he is quoted as saying. ] 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV section dispute == | |||
| While the links are genuine, the supposed "controversy" is not. It is simply something someone is using as a basis simply because they do not care for Goodkind and wish to place him in a negative light based on their POV. It is very interesting AND telling that this poster of the controversy post singles out a specific item and twists it to use as a pejorative attempting to make Goodkind look inflammatory. Any book ever written is in some part a philosophical opinion or view of the author, so if you find a book not to your liking, don't read it, or stop reading it. I have more of a problem with the fact that this sad individual chooses to state a fact that he CANNOT back, that being "Recently Goodkind has come under fire from critics and fans alike for comments he made about his work". Oddly enough he cannot provide any verification for this boast. | |||
| mystar1959 | |||
| "Reception" section is in violation of Misplaced Pages Neutral point of view policy. | |||
| Section does not represent "proportionately" | |||
| :If you can show that the quotes are taken out of context so as to be misleading, then you may have a case. Otherwise, I don't see any basis for your complaint. ] 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Section does not "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." | |||
| go to any message board about literature, anywhere on the internet and mention terry goodkind. i almost guarantee you'll immediately be flamed mercilessly for liking the guy. whether you call it a controversy or not, you can't ridicule your own fans and expect to get away with it. so people like to read the sword of truth books for the fantasy involved. is that so wrong? i literally skipped dozens of pages at a time while reading the last three or four books and didn't feel like i'd missed anything. just because you criticize an author's work, that doesn't mean that you "hate everything that is good omg". richard rahl is the fantasy equivalent of a backwoods hick, yet all of a sudden he can speak for hours about philosophy, use a sword and magic at master levels with no training, and solve any problem, no matter how hard it would be for anyone else. it's shoddy writing but oh noez!!!11!1 since i said that i "hate everything that is good". give me a break. | |||
| levid37 | |||
| From the NPOV article: | |||
| "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." | |||
| "Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others" | |||
| "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another." | |||
| Explanation: The current postings in the reception section are appropriate in an isolated context, but presented as such give undue weight to the criticisms against the author and his works. There are no truly positive reviews posted, and the section gives an impression that the author and series is viewed negatively overall, despite the existence of positive reviews, its presence on many fantasy best-of lists, and best seller status. I would suggest that either: | |||
| Well, there you have it! We have a person who has in his own words hates Goodkind. HE hates that Goodkind's works exist. SO because of that he feels it is his task to post misinformation and a slanted post about this person he so hates. That's not an attack of personal slander? We go further, this poor person feel that anyone anywhere can go to any rabid fan site dedicated to the author of other fantasy series and expect nothing but praise and worship for other authors? Again I challenge the validity of his claims. What we have here is as I stated earlier. A sad little person who has little time on his hands but to try and drag his personal crusade onto other respectable sites. Paste his personal crusade to smear and disparage someone simply because he doesn't like what Goodkind has written and written so well that Goodkind has sold millions and millions of books and has become one of the top selling series in fantasy. Yes, yes by al means allow personal smear campaigns like that. It makes Misplaced Pages look like some two bit fantasy rabid fan site with no creditability. | |||
| A. Additional positive review material be added to more accurately reflect the reception of the author and his works, or | |||
| B. The section be removed in its entirety. | |||
| Apologies if this is written wrong, not a wiki editor, did my best though. cheers <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| As to the point I made earlier. SHOW ME THE CONTRAVSRY and not just a sad little person bent on a smear campaign. Show me that his post is IN context. Show me the critic that are putting him under fire. I see NO such link, I see no such validation simply that one person has made a statement of his OWN personal feelings. | |||
| :I agree. Not even a single positive review is mentioned here. I came here after reading one of his books, which I considered to be topnotch fantasy and the article lead me to believe that he is widely considered a bad author. I've realized from other sources that there are actually many people who share my views. | |||
| Fan's may or many not like a work. So what! Not every person will like exactly everything that is written or written by a favored author. SO is that validation to call him names and ridicule? I think not and especially not on such a place as Misplaced Pages. Again we have someone making a claim that he cannot back up. Simply put there is a link to an interview that the poster wishes to place his OWN spin on and that's it. I thought as do many others that Misplaced Pages had a higher standard and was a place for honest, unbiased and factual information, not a two bit rag that allows rabid smear tactics.] | |||
| :Also a section titled "Reception" sounds weird to me in an article about an author. Naturally each of his works will have different reception. Also, no other authors which I looked up in Misplaced Pages has this section. | |||
| :dude, calm down. I do not HATE terry goodkind and i do not HATE that his works exist. now who's taking someone's words out of context? taking it personal much? and did i say "go to another author's page and talk about goodkind"? no. my exact words were "go to any message board about literature". yeah, i know, "any message board" includes other author's message boards but i assumed that one would know the difference. | |||
| :I will wait a month, and if no other comments are added here, I'll delete the section. | |||
| :and as far as this "hating" terry goodkind, nowhere did i say that i hated him or his works. honestly, i enjoy aspects of his work. enough aspects, in fact, that i would consider myself a fan. but at the same time, i think that other aspects are in fact preachy and overdrawn. but according to the comments made BY THE AUTHOR, you can't do both. you can't be a fan who criticizes. and before you deny that claim, think about this: every time i've ever tried to write any sort of criticism or what i thought of terry or his work on his official website, even if it's filled with glowing praise, as long as it's contained one single, solitary gripe, no matter how small, about the book or his beliefs, it's been immediately deleted by a mod. apparently terry and his mods don't like us ignorant fans dissecting his work. go figure. and btw, you seem to be taking this a little personal. the fact is, goodkind did say those things. so an individual (or group of individuals) doesn't heap praise on an author. that doesn't make it a smear campaign. it's their opinion and they have a right to it. that doesn't automatically mean they "hate what is good." levid37 | |||
| :] (]) 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Facebook as a source == | |||
| Someone added his official Facebook as a source. Is it reliable enough, or no? ] (]) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| What you and so many fail to see and rail against is the thematic nature of the series. The brevity, the heroics, heroic and the nobility overcoming with out sacrificing your values and ethics. Seeing in literature a story where one can indeed win with out compromising his nature or values. | |||
| :At the time, it was the only available source and, as you pointed out, is his official account. TOR has since confirmed, and I'll be adding that shortly. ] (]) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| NOW here the proof is in the truth of your admission. You admit to “skimming pages and chapters, then you feel qualified to give commentary and critique? Please! You just disqualified yourself from any kind of notion that anyone would take you or your comments with anything more than uneducated and unfounded babble | |||
| Again I'll post the comments, which no one else has done, and show the context. | |||
| I appreciate and accept the change made to the topic title, which is more fitting, but still not in keeping with what Misplaced Pages was created for and is used for. Lets not allow Misplaced Pages to turn into another all tings go message board for posting things simply because you don’t like that person. Isn’t there enough nastiness in the world? Aren’t there enough places where untoward and tawdry remarks are used to besmirch a person reputation? As I understood it and read it, Misplaced Pages and its nature is not to allow personal vendettas to rule someone’s post. I find I am mistaken. | |||
| == Critisms == | |||
| First I have to be in New York for the next three days, so if you'll forgive my absence until then, I'll only be too happy to provide you with the factual context and where the sad people with no life keep missing the point, context and issue. I will also say this, | |||
| "enemies are the price of honor". ] | |||
| No one has acknowledged the critisms of Mr. GoodKind. Is it because everyone here is trying to make him seem positive? No offense, but a ''lot'' of people have critized him, and he steals his ideas from others. (this has been proven and stated by reputable sources.) This section is important. | |||
| :You're right, there is way too much nastiness in the world. So I propose a truce, wherein we can come to an understanding. i for one am willing to put away my biting sarcasm if you're willing to stop calling me uneducated :) | |||
| ] (]) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :i just want to clarify. i in no way shape or form dislike terry goodkind. i don't dislike his works or his philosophies. he has every right to his beliefs just like anyone else. all i'm saying, is that i personally enjoy his works for their fantasy aspects. i can't help but feel the slightest bit insulted when an author assumes that i hate his works and that i hate his beliefs just because i get a bit bored with the constant philosophical speeches in his novels. and don't think that just because i skip a paragraph or two here and there that i don't fully understand or dislike the ideas he's putting forth. i was exaggerating for the sake of exaggeration when i said i skipped chapters and pages. all i'm saying is that i just feel that sometimes richard or zedd can be a little long-winded in their speeches. you don't have to beat me over the head with a philosophical brick every three pages, i get the idea. | |||
| :i'll say it again. i don't hate terry goodkind. i don't hate his work. maybe i AM taking his words out of context. i'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. it's the least i can do for the hours of entertainment he's given me, and i'll be happy to rationally discuss the topic til i'm blue in the face. | |||
| I fail to see the reason for dissent here. Terry Goodkind's works have been a source of controversy and debate for a long time on many forums (including but not limited to Westeros.org, Malazanempire.com, Wotmania.com, SF.com.rec.arts and others), in critical assessments of the Sword of Truth series and in print reviews. There is a controversy, even if it is relatively mild compared to say, the debates that raged in the past over L. Ron Hubbard's work. I think acknowledging it is merely enough, however. Going into detail (for example, about the Canada incident, the instant self-contradictions etc) is probably pushing the boundaries of Misplaced Pages's fairness. On the other hand, refusing to mention it at all would also be dishonest. --] 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What is dishonest is that you’re thinking these rabid fan boy message boards are something akin to the majority of the worldview. Sorry to burst your bubble, they are not. You have no source for any "critical views" save those of armchair critics. The only so called " controversy" is with you and a handful of fantasy geeks. Any "in print" reviews you will not find "controversy". We all get you have some kind of burr under your saddle. We al get you don't like Goodkind. That does not give you the right to vandalize his page or to keep posting unverifiable information. It does not give you the right to post your slanted POV. Listing a bunch of crazy fan boy boards is not considered a source. You truly need to learn what a source is and that your personal dislike is not reason enough to continue to vandalize this and other pages. I suggest you learn that befor your actions are | |||
| sanctioned | |||
| ] 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In an attempt to rationalise the debate somewhat, I will concur that my comments above (taken at a time when I was new to Misplaced Pages) are somewhat irrelevant to this article, although simultaneously pointing out that they are not reflected in the article itself, rather as rebuttal for your claim that there is no debate. There is a debate about Goodkind, fiercely fought and widespread across SF&F fandom, but as it is a POV and matter-of-opinion discussion, it is perhaps not entirely relevant to discuss in this article. However, I do object to being accused of vandalising this page. I have never done so. Your repeated lies that I have done so are frankly childish and unworthy of you. If you withdraw these baseless accusations and apologise, I will withdraw my above comments and consent to having this exchange deleted from the discussion page so other subjects may be discussed.--] 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Photo == | |||
| The article says he was born in 1948, so that photo can't be all that recent. Is there one available that isn't quite so old? ] 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. I just got off the phone with Terry and he stated that he much prefers that photo, but if you give me an e-mail address I'll send you a few recent ones to post. ] will reach me faster than ] as I'll be out of town for the next few days. ] | |||
| :I sent you a letter by email, since you asked. Having said that, anyone can guess my gmail account name without straining their brains. :-) | |||
| :As I see it, there's no reason for us ''not'' to honor his preference for the photo currently up. However, there's also no reason for us to ''exclude'' a more recent photo. I can imagine fan coming to a signing and failing to recognize Goodkind because all they've ever seen is this rather dated photo. | |||
| :It is vital for Misplaced Pages purposes that you state the licensing constraints. Please take a look at ] for details, or just upload the images yourself. Whatever works. ] 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, Mystar1959 was kind enough to provide three recent photos of Goodkind for use here. At his request, I've uploaded them, and I'd like you all to take a look and tell me which one(s) you'd like to add to the article. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Personally I don't think any of them are necessary, but whatever floats your boat. Btw, that painting he has is awesome! I want it! ] 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == removal of editorializing == | |||
| The material I've removed is poorly sourced, and Goodkind's publicist has written to us claiming that the purported interview upon which it is based never took place. I don't believe that this section is relevant to the article anyway. It's unencyclopedic and POV-driven. These sorts of definitional issues are not relevant to Goodkind's life and work. ] Co., ] 15:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Biographical information, especially concerning the author's attitude towards writing, is highly relevant. Now, if Goodkind wishes to deny the factuality of the quotes, he's welcome to. It would then be up to us to determine if there is a substantial difference in credibility or if we would do best to simply let both sides speak. | |||
| :In short, while I'm open to further work on this section, there is no excuse for removing it. In the meantime, let's leave the text alone. If you want to flag it with a sectional POV warning, that's reasonable. If you want to mark parts as uncited, that's also reasonable. Wholesale censorship, however, is unacceptable. ] 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Editing is not ]. ] Co., ] 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Correct: censorship is a subset of editing. I suggest that you avoid this subset and stick to more constructive areas. ] 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Blah Blah Blah | |||
| == Clean up of discussion page? == | |||
| Would anyone mind if we clean up the discussion page? It's getting quite long now, especially with those images on it. | |||
| I'm a huge fan of Terry Goodkind. I'm the one who created all those gazillions of wikipedia SOT articles you see (no thanks required). However, I feel that the section in question on this page should not be removed. It has been re-worded and is no longer POV-driven. I believe it actually puts Goodkind in a favorable light. It shows how he is more than a uthor, he is a novelist and is revolutionizing the fantasy genre. It shows him the way he wants to be seen, using his own words nonetheless (how can that be POV?). If, for some reason, Terry has something against this being shown and wishes to retract or clarify what he said, then that should be added to this article as well, or the section can be modified in some other way if you want... but there's no reason to remove it completely in my opinion, especially since it actually shows Goodkind in a favorable light. Also, I think that the POV tag should be removed. ] 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Before we shuffle those three images links off into an archive, do you have any opinion on them? ] 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't have an opinion on the images. I don't feel that it's necessary to add them to the page, but I'm not against it. I don't believe anyone would be unable to recognize him at a book signing, especially considering he'd be the one sitting behind the desk with a pen and a stack of his books and a line of people in front of him... Besides, I don't think his appearance has really changed all that much. ] 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, from the rather unflattering second picture, you might think he's aged a century and now tends to fall asleep while talking, so let's just throw that one out. The first would be ok, but it's a tiny picture, and he's a tiny part of it; I have to squint to see if he's in it at all. The last has a lot going for it, in that it's recent and accurate. The only problem is that it's HUGE. It wouldn't be hard to trim out all the background to leave just Goodkind in a chair, but I'm not sure that I'm the best person for such a task and I suspect that the original source of the image is not going to volunteer to help me on anything. ] 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well we see just what an ass you realloy are. Just how is it that you assume that someone "tends to fall asleep while talking" jusyt looking at a picture? I think you are clearly showing your biase and why this page is having such problems. The problem is you and your allowing of personal poor judgment into it all. ] 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are violating both ] and ], which says a lot about you, and nothing about me. It particularly shows that you have poor judgement and a short temper. | |||
| :::::I said that the second picture makes him look very old and as if he tends to fall asleep while talking. You'll note that the photographer caught him in a blink, which is what leads to that perception. I said this to point out why the picture is unacceptable. If I were some insane Goodkind-basher, I'd be insisting on using whatever picture made him look worst. | |||
| :::::You owe me an apology, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyone who lacks the courtesy to log in can't be expected to follow other courtesies. ] 17:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nobody ever ''owes'' anyone an apology. An apology that is given when ''due'' cannot truly be an apology in the first place. ]<font style="color:#FF72E3;"><span class="Unicode">▼</span></font>'''<sup>]</sup>'''<font color="#FF0000" size="+1"><span class="Unicode">♥</span></font><sup>''']'''</sup><font color="#5500FF" size="+1">'''<span class="Unicode">♑</span>'''</font> 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The man said it. He dug a hole, which his supporters appear to be unable to realise that they are digging deeper. In any case, its not his writing which disturbs me as much as his dress sense in those photos. | |||
| :I don't particularly see how calling fantasy a "tired, empty genre" can be looked at in a favorable light. Honestly though, I'm tired of debating it. Every time I try to make a point Goodkind's supporters either ignore it or lash back with insults. As long as the link to the original chat and the link to inchoatous's essay on it stays up I don't care what the article itself says. Anyone who reads either of them will see the truth. It's clear to me now that no criticism of Terry Goodkind will ever exist on wikipedia because GOD FORBID anyone say something unfavorable about someone's favorite author, whether it's true or not. Levid37 | |||
| :I agree that the fantasy genre is tired and empty compared to many other genres. Does that mean I should be looked at negatively as a person? The "truth" you're claiming is your own opinion and wikipedia is NPOV. ] 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Verifiability of "online chat" == | |||
| A contributor has brought up the issue of usage of this online chat as a source for article content, given that the article in question at , contains no sourcable information. The editorial points to a now nowhere-to-be-found online chat of Terry Goodkind and therefore fails ]. The information about Goodkind's opinions should be removed once and for all. Had this information been published in a credible news source, it would meet verifiability standards. Chat transcripts, incedentally, are not a credible source of information. Goodkind's opinions that are contained in this section, however likely they had been expressed, should not be considered factual and should be now removed from the article. ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>''']'''</sub> 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Listen to the pink triangle. --] 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's an ongoing attempt to censor the contents of the online chat in an effort to whitewash Goodkind's rep. I prefer that the truth be told, so that people can decide for themselves. The entire chat was posted on Goodkind's official website, then removed once it was referenced in this article. Mirrors remain, as do verifiable articles that reference this chat, therefore any removal is not only premature, but constitutes a contination of the censorship effort. For this reason, I will continue to oppose such attempts. Thank you for understanding. ] 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You need to do one better than saying merely "mirrors remain" and "verifiable articles reference this chat". Can we please get some links? Remember ]. --] 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your wish is my command. ] 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The interviews mentioned were not removed due to anyone getting negative feed back. If you haven't noticed the site is undergoing some updating. The interviews will be placed as they are quite specifically something Goodkind wishes, as well as his fans. | |||
| I take offices again at the underhanded attempts to place such POV opinion on a site that is supposed to be " encyclopedic" rather than a format for misinformation and a feeding frenzy for rabid anti Goodkind trolls to post false information. Lets get it right people. | |||
| As I search the links that were provided by whoever... they lead to nothing more than personal blog's, messages boards, but nothing of any professional or creditable content. I think we can all see the point here is not follow the rules, or provide "encyclopedic" information, but rather to get as much trash talk about the author, simply because some people think it funny. Oh, BTW, I do have the links and copy of said trolls discussing this very tactic. To place disparaging information. Saying "We should add this stuff to Goodkind Misplaced Pages page to drive his fan's nuts". | |||
| SO tell "Al" me what is it that finds you not only incapable of following the rules and allowing trite content, but pushing it. The said links had nothing to do with anything more than offering up negative opinions and POV reviews that are not even from a professional source? That are just the musings of a wanna be critic? Not to mention the attempted little jibs at Goodkind character that these trolls keep trying to add? | |||
| ] 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It may well be that the chat log was removed for incidental reasons, but the timing suggests otherwise. If I'm mistaken, though, then the best way to prove me wrong is to ensure that the chat log is restored on the site so we can link to it directly. | |||
| :Through the miracle of Google cache, I have a full copy of the log, but there's a legal threat on the page, so I'm not going to post it up without permission. In the meantime, I'm linking to the Google cache (as their lawyers can handle the flak) and also linking to blogs that contain what I know to be accurate quotes from the chat log, as well as support the claim that some fans have reacted negatively to what they perceive as Goodkind's hubris. | |||
| :There is such a thing as being pro or con, but there's also the middle ground of neutrality, which is often hated by the extremes. ] 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We have no problem with "middle" ground, and we WANT the interviews posted, BUT you seem to what? Think it funny to post links of people personal blogs, simply because they are derisive towards Goodkind, not to mention the links to message boards with nothing to do with the real interviews. MY original complaint was the fake interview, by Worthead et al. It was removed, yet now you seem to be as biased as these anti-Goodkind fans in placing anything that will sound of a negative tone. I have reviewed the rules and you have repeatedly violated the rules several times over. You sir are not being "Neutral", but rather are going out of your way to provide anything you can find that has a negative aspect, being provided to you by these same people. | |||
| As I have said, with any book, you will find people who agree and who also disagree. I see nowhere in any of any posts made by you on any other topic such a vehement disregard to the rules except this one. Not to mention your proclivity to insure that only negative commentary is posted at this site. | |||
| Again WIkipedia is supposed to be "encyclopedic" and not yours or anyone else "soap box" simply because they find they do not like the topis/person. ] | |||
| As for the afore mentioned interviews, you may or may not have noticed .com is undergoing a new look. Some of the content is not yet restored, but will be. | |||
| However, that is not the point. So Goodkind has an opinon of his works? So a few trolls got togather and asked Goodkind a loaded question, after posting that it was going to be a loaded question, and afterwards admidted that it was loaded... What you have is simply an interview. Some would wish to make more of it than it is. The point is that this site is for encyclopedic information and not for cross burning. You are allowing the cross burners a forum for their POV, when the site should be information as to the author and not petty gripes a few disgruntles ex-fans have. | |||
| I have reviewd many many other wilipedia pages and see nothing like the crap you keep allowing here. | |||
| So S'up with that eh? | |||
| This policy in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Misplaced Pages for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. 1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Misplaced Pages has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox | |||
| Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Misplaced Pages articles are not: | |||
| -àIt is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Misplaced Pages's prohibition on original research.ß-- | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a battleground Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point | |||
| Need I say more?] | |||
| :You've said a lot, but I don't see where you've specifically addressed the issues that are relevant to this article. Please do so. ] 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "MY original complaint was the fake interview, by Werthead et al". Please explain this comment as I cannot fathom the reasoning behind it. What fake interview are you referring to? I see that my comments earlier with regard to book sales have been deleted from this discussion page. I would like to know who did this and for what reasoning? Finally, you require a source to say that the SoT series has sold 50 million copies as there is absolutely no evidence for this. Tor's biggest-selling author has been repeatedly acknowledged by Tor themselves as Robert Jordan, who it is estimated has sold 20-30 million books. If you are saying that TG has sold nearly twice as many, you require proof, preferrably a direct quotation from a verifiable source at Tor Books.--] 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mystar has provided a source for his 50 million claim. Unfortunately that source is hardly unbiased (TG's agent). A verifiable source from Tor Books itself would be preferred, if at all possible. TG's French publishers have suggested worldwide sales of 11 million, which concurs with other available data. That he has sold nearly five times as many seems highly improbable.--] 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unbiased or not, it is the duty of the agent to provide the numbers from "all" sources, not just what one or two may think the sales are. That someone may find a thing " improbable” doesn’t make it untrue. My contacts at Tor (Tom Doherty included), confirms the ever-expanding demand from the market for Goodkind's backlist. What worthead seems to be missing is that the "11 Million" figure is coming from "one" foreign source. And we should also remember that Goodkind has publishers in many various parts of the world. When you take the combined totals, including those in Russia, China, Italy, Japan, India, (the list goes on, the number is indeed very believable. Goodkind’s foreign sales are reaching higher and higher numbers weekly. The foreign sales of the Sword of Truth Series have been a pleasant surprise to many. My ties at Tor also confirm a high record number of foreign sales, not just in books but the exceptional number of sales of the Audio books as well. I also have close ties to the Audio publisher and they confirm a large increase in the Audio sales of the Series. I’m sorry this seems to cause some great discomfort, but I’m sure it isn’t, or shouldn’t be an end to your world.] 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The amusing way you propogate your misinformation is not going to end my world any time soon. Nevertheless, until such time as your sales figures are verified by Tor Books themselves on their own page or in an interview with a reputable source, your figure remains highly questionable. I will allow it to stand with the caveat that source must be quoted in the article until such time as it is proven or disproven, however.--] 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| LMAO! sorry, I'm unable to stop laughing here... You have no choice but to let it stand, you have no authority otherwise. Like it or not, Tor is only a small COG in the wheel of sales. YOU may well not like the "reputable" source, but then again, what you don't like is irrelevant. Feel free to contact the myriad publishers and resellers world wide......"allow it to stand....roflmao.... | |||
| ] | |||
| :No. The onus is on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it. Misplaced Pages works on the basis of providing sources. You have provided a single source which would appear to be biased. Nevertheless, it is a source and thus is acceptable. You have not provided a single iota of evidence for your other points, but since you have restricted this hollow posturing to the talk page and not brought it onto the main page, this is irrelevant. And I have the ability, as does everyone here, to report offending contributors to the moderators, which is what I meant by that comment.--] 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, BTW, stop editing my posts, that is indeed vandalizing and shall be reported as such! If you do not like how I spell or how I post, then I suggest you stop reading them. | |||
| ] | |||
| :I have not edited any of your posts at all, whilst on the other hand you have admitted deleting two of my points because you could not answer them with any verifiable facts. I suggest restricting your hypocrisy from now on. Thank you..--] 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Alienus and Mystar == | |||
| I begin to see the problem. After reviewing your talk page and seeing first hand the simply fact you have a problem. You have been blocked on numerous occasions for the same garbage you are doing here. You have been warned repeatedly and continue to violate the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Your personal opposition to anything Rand or of any objectivists is clear. How you were able to become a mod is beyond me. The simple fact is that you are not only creating, but also perpetuating rule breaking and continued violations and it need to be stopped. YOU have an aversion to allowing anyone/thing Rand or objectivist to be seen in a positive light. You seem to think that it is being fair to only allow disparaging or derogatory content to be placed. | |||
| We now see the problem. We call for an end to your personal war and biased. Shame on you AL. | |||
| June 2006] | |||
| :I'm going to assume good faith and remain civil. Sadly, doing so leaves me with nothing further to say. Perhaps if you stopped talking about me and started talking about the article, I might have something to contribute. Thank you for understanding. ] 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately As I have stated, you ignore the rules and keep placing inappropriate information and allow your personal distaste to run this page. You have nothing further to say, because I've hit the nail on the head. You have added improper content and insist on placement of negative and unnecessary content. You have not only allowed, but also placed and replaced personal blog’s of people simply due to the fact they have a personal issue and distain for the author. You have allowed links that are nothing more than POV bias against the author when he was attacked for his personal beliefs and defended himself. You have added non-neutral bias and refuse to follow the rules. One only has but to look at your talk page and see the problem that you will only allow your personal ideology against anyone of an objectivist standpoint. It is truly telling that these people worthead et al, are your "buddies", you have been blocked and reprimanded for such behavior on other Misplaced Pages pages and responded to your superiors with acerbic commentary. SO yes I am talking "TO" you as well as pointing out your failure to adhere to the policies you agreed to uphold. | |||
| ] 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Two things: | |||
| :1) It would be helpful if you could restore the original chat log to the web site sooner rather than later. This way, I no longer need to link to sources solely on the basis that they contain accurate quotes from the log. | |||
| :2) Aside from not wanting blog links, was there anything in specific that you would change? ] 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The interviews and past chat section has been up for two months. http://www.prophets-inc.com/the_author/ipc.html | |||
| Though I again point out that you have gone over the edge with your determination to disparage Goodkind or myself or the Webmaster of another site with the false assumption that interviews were removed out of fear. You attempt to apply the appearance that someone is afraid these will be seen. Your placement and wording “but this was taken down shortly after some negative feedback by fans.” Again as I stated from the start are specific inflamatory designed to invoke a negitive reaction or the reader rather than invoke the reader to cerebration. | |||
| Again I point out that Misplaced Pages is not your personal soap box or stomping ground. | |||
| The fact that some few people find Goodkind responding to barbed question swith the aplumb and tactfullness not to their taste or perssonal liking has nothing to do with an informational page. If you wish garbage lieke that to be discussed, that is why Misplaced Pages has a “Discussion” page. Youporvlivity to push out assumed negitive overtones is not in keeping with the fan base even at a smal point. A few select group of rabble rousers wish to put forth their distane of Goodkind. Fine. That is why they have message boards. Misplaced Pages is not a message board, nor is it desgined to relay personal distaste, as you have shown to rule the face page. | |||
| The simple fact that Goodkind has his roots in Randian philosophy is not cause for you or others to try to decay his page. Reading your talk page is telling indeed. It not only shows your inability to follow the rules, but reads with the paranoia of a petty adolesent who has abused his power. Telling indeed. | |||
| YOU have allowed the term “Crazy” to not only be used but to be topic/title for a section within the discussion page. Goodkind has neither exibited such tendancy’s nor been accused of any thing more than supporting his values and beliefs. Goodkind again defends his POV with fact and consicely, accuratly exposes the question for what it is. Simply because a few lost souls have misunderstood and rejected Goodkinds works and words as execrable, does not give them license to falsly state that “Recently Goodkind has come under fire from critics and fans alike for comments he made about his work”. When only a couple of people have voiced their discent and not one critic has yet to state such a thing. Yes, one person who is nothing more than an opininated bloger has posted what he assumes to be a “Review” yet, he is not in any sence of the word anything more than an arimchair critic. He is neither a profesional or otherwise anything more than a bloger with a smelly armpit. We all have them. | |||
| SO you have a problem, I see you willing to remain sacrastic and unyealding to the proper eticutte and rules, in favor of your ability to edit in favor of your personal tastea and opinion. You have proven you have no “good faith” to which I can believe in. I have been proven wrong a time or two, but I’m usually spot on. | |||
| I shall take it to the next level. | |||
| ] | |||
| :Thanks for providing the a link to the chat log. Unfortunately, your edit wasn't quite right, but it was easy enough to fix. Now the article is much improved by having a good citation for that section. ] 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mystar, Bastique has asked for a more specific link. From looking around, I wasn't sure which chat had the quotes that are in the article. Got a more specific link? ] 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Page has been Vanadalized == | |||
| Never Mind, I figured out how to fix it. | |||
| It appears that someone has valdaized this page. They have changed the references of objectivisim, to communisim, and thrown a blurb in the online quote about him wanting people to commit suicide. Is there anyone out there that can fix this. | |||
| ==Regarding Mystar's Edits== | |||
| Mystar, I understand your desire to reduce clutter on the talk page, and thanks for trying to help. However, please don't delete large sections of the talk page. Instead of deleting, archive the sections instead, that way people will be able to access the discusions if they desire without having to see them all on the main talk page. Deleting large portions of text, even on the talk page, is considered by many to be vandalism. Just wanted to let you know. - ] 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ahhhhh My bad, I didn't know anything about archiving. I'm just not up on all this new fangled stuff! I would suggest that someone please archive several sections as they are really meaningless and not pertinate to the subject at hand. The page is too cluttered with things that are not of any import] | |||
| :Your opinion on what is and what is not of any import is irrelevant. It is also clear that you are familiar with Misplaced Pages usage policy and procedure based on your above dispute with Alienus. Thus your decision to remove large amounts of text including my questions regarding sales was clearly pre-meditated. Any further action of this sort will resort in a formal complaint to the moderators about your conduct. I suggest you modify your behaviour accordingly.--] 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just as a policy note, when a talk page is archived, it is done so based upon the date of the postings, not the subjective "importance". On Misplaced Pages, all discussion is equally important, and respect for everyone's opinions is a key issue. Regarding this talk page, it really doesn't need any archiving yet. In my experience, most talk pages aren't archived until they reach 75+ KB in length; this one is only at about 45 KB. - ] 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sadly Worthead, I "didn't get caught by the mods" I made a choice to remove a considerable amount of drivel, pertinent (in your eyes) or not simply takes up a good deal of space and is really nothing but POV/opinion that has nothing to do with Goodkind’s POV or works. If the admins/powers that be wish it to stay, fine. As for Misplaced Pages, I'm simply learning the ropes. As for your "Your opinion on what is and what is not of any import is irrelevant", sorry you again show not only your ignorance but just how much this truly gets under your skin and keeps you up at night. Any Changes I make are relevant and important, as they are specifically discussed with Goodkind. Further, even in the event they were not (you'll no doubt have another red-faced tirade on your home page at this but who cares), "MY" opinion is justly as important of not more so as my facts are accurate and accurately backed with fact in print and reference. I suggest you keep that in mind next time. | |||
| As for Al, yes we see what happened to him didn't we... You cannot go on a personal crusade to discredit and besmirch someone page and not be taken to task for it. Al got what I, and a great many feel he more than deserved. | |||
| As you most likely are not aware of (and we know that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of that issue), is that I have been in contact with Runch and a few others with respect to making significant additions and changes in bringing Goodkind’s page up to standards and up to date, eliminating the so called speculation and nonsense items. | |||
| Oh one last thing, you have no authority here anymore that I or any one of the myriad of users, your "I suggest you modify your behavior" is a laughable cliché and hollow threat... Any "complaints" are welcome and encouraged, they will fall on def ears as I have committed no offences, but go ahead. Keep us amused at your inability to fathom truth and integrity | |||
| ] 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recent Edits== | |||
| ], I know you have the best of intentions regarding the Terry Goodkind page here on Misplaced Pages, but you need to be able to respect other people's ability to edit the page. The recent edits made by ] were perfectly legitimate. Citations really are needed for sweeping statements such as: "Terry Goodkind has been called one of the most phenomenally successful new fantasy writers of the 1990s". With a citation that leads you to the individual(s) that made the statement, the statement suddenly becomes credible. | |||
| Also, Goodkind is not best known for his paintings; he is, at least now, best known for his Sword of Truth series. As a result, I think ] edits on this section should remain as well. | |||
| I welcome discussion on the subject, but please keep it civil. Thanks, ] 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :Thanx Runch, I appericate your help | |||
| :And they in turn should respect my edits as well. The fact that Goodkind is most notably known "now" for his Sword of Truth Series is only what has occurred "now". He was (as I had stated) first and foremost an artist, which he will also attest to at this point. He "was" most notably known. It didn't need to be changed. If Moody wished to add that his recent notoriety is that of the Author of the Sword of Truth Series, fine, but Moody changed what was the emphasis of Goodkind's work up to that point. | |||
| :As for the Citation needed, Again I disagree, as all anyone has to do is to read the reviews of that specific time. The fact that someone now wishes to say, "oh I can't get past that with out needing to be pointed in the right direction" is just silly. | |||
| :~shrugs~ | |||
| :I suppose we should also then require a citation for every statement then, Goodkind went to school..., Goodkind dropped out of Collage. I mean what if he didn't! What if he kept going, I think it need a citation...OH and We simply must put a citation on the fact that Goodkind has been largely influenced by the books of Ayn Rand. ;p my point being we can citation to death and it looks like that is going to happen. The simply fact is Goodkind has been so stated over and over again, as holding still to date the record for the highest paid manuscript of a first time author for the U. S. rights. And Goodkind had held it since the publication of Wizards First Rule. Perhaps we should also place that on his main page, as it is not only verifiable but not in dispute by any publisher or agency. | |||
| :I welcome changes, but when we get to a point when the changes are nothing so much as trolling looking to add contrib’s to get a leg up, it is a bit ridiculous. But I’m just one lone person…btw doesn’t Goodkind have any say on what he wishes his own page to say? | |||
| ] 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::First, the painting. Your description of what the article used to say is incorrect, and it did need changing. What the article said before my initial alteration was "Terry Goodkind is an artist first and foremost. Most notably he is known for his realistic marine and wildlife paintings." This is confusing phrasing for someone described in the article lead as a writer. I have no objection to the article mentioning that Goodkind paints, or that his paintings are popular and acclaimed, or that prior to his books being published he was best known as a painter, provided that these facts have verifiable sources attached to them. Everything in a Misplaced Pages article should, so, although you intended the comment ironically, "we should also then require a citation for every statement." | |||
| ::Everything, by the way, includes statements like "Terry Goodkind has been called one of the most phenomenally successful new fantasy writers of the 1990s." Regardless of your personal feelings, it is not enough to say "all anyone has to do is to read the reviews of that specific time;" ] says that sources should be cited whenever possible. Since the phrase seems to refer to a specific quote, finding a source, or a similar quote that makes the same point, should hardly be that difficult. | |||
| ::You can indeed add the information about Goodkind's advance if you can source it; I've seen it in a couple reputable sources myself, so it's definitely appropriate in principle. | |||
| ::The rest of your comments are unnecessarily rude and violate ] and ]. ] 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem with "phenomenally successful" is that it is used in such a vast manor it no longer holds the meaning I think you wish to make it seem. While it is possible to dig up several reviews and articles offering that exacting verbage, it isn't like it needs verifying. Lets take a walk through any search engine for the sake of time and effort we will limit our search to google. I widely used and much like Misplaced Pages, for the most part respected... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Terry+Goodkind+phenomenally+successful&btnG=Search | |||
| :::Paging through the hundreds of pages we find hundreds of uses for the term "phenomenally successful". | |||
| :::I guess I need ask, to which do you need citation? That someone somewhere wrote it? That someone somewhere said it? That someone somewhere printer it, referred to it, referenced it, or is it just plausible enough that "phenomenally successful" can stand on its own merits in that the person having any "success" is a phenomenon. Or perhaps that the term "phenomenally successful" means that he is read world wide with millions of sales... Personally I think that is citation enough, but that's just "my humble opinion". Oh and please note I'm making a "matter of fact" statement. Please try not to read any inference of emotion I am not placing in my post. Were I to be offended or injecting rudeness I would most assuredly apprise you of it. I may well not have the astounding abilities to interject the exact inference you think I am offering; I am simply stating what I see as the situation. Then again, people will usually only see what they expect to see. | |||
| :::] 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no idea what you think I wish to make "phenomenally successful" seem to mean; I'm not even sure how its meaning is particularly disputable. None of the Google search results (which cover eight pages, not hundreds) for "Terry Goodkind phenomenally successful" actually use the phrase "phenomenally successful" to refer to Goodkind himself, except quotes from Misplaced Pages and its mirrors. This doesn't matter anyway, as simply pulling a source from a Google search is not good enough. When you write in an encyclopedia article that someone's works have been labelled successful, you expect the label to come from some notable source, like a critic or a journalist or a publisher or something. A citation of that sort is what we would need. See ]. | |||
| ::::If all the point you want to make is that Goodkind is read worldwide with millions of sales... the article already says that. Do we need a quote to reiterate it, especially one that has no apparent source and uses ] like "has been called?" | |||
| ::::However you intended the comment "when we get to a point when the changes are nothing so much as trolling looking to add contrib’s to get a leg up, it is a bit ridiculous," calling others' contributions "trolling" and suggesting that they contribute "to get a leg up" is uncivil and imputes bad faith, both of which are clearly disallowed by policy. Please don't do it again. ] 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| My point being that the phrase "phenomenally successful” is used to death with out any supporting source, as we can see in any simple search on any search engine. My point is that you seem to be picking at nits here. It is something people say, write and refer to when speaking of or about something or someone that has better than normal success. That is what we are dealing with here even though the application has been said and has been in print for years. | |||
| I read hundreds of articles needing (according to you then) citations and have been left untouched. I guess I am forced to wonder what suddenly precipitated the "oh my gosh, we simply can't allow that to stand with out a citation what were we thinking" efforts in eliminating information. | |||
| ~shrugs~ | |||
| I see a great deal of “bad faith” and “uncivil” behavior on Misplaced Pages. This is why it has such a horrendous reputation for editing wars and quarreling admins. | |||
| ] 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:32, 12 April 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terry Goodkind article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 Archives |
Book standard link
I've looked through the two articles in reference to the miniseries, and the only bit of info I can find that is in the "Book standard" link and not the "Comingsoon.net" is the following info:
- "Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan."
Aside from that, the information that I can see is essentially identical, and the comingsoon.net article actually has more detail than the Book standard. The only info in the above quote is about specific books, and though it could be on those pages I don't see a need for the info in this one. WP:EL nutshell is Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article, which was why I removed it in the first place (i.e. if the info is already there, why a second link?). If there is any further info that I've missed in the link, it's better added to the page and the Book standard tacked on as a reference, as per If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first, also from WP:EL.
WLU 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not picking a fight by removing the link. As I said above - WP:EL recommends keeping external links to a minimum and including the information as a reference if possible. Since there is already a reference for this information on the page it is unnecessary duplication. Further, since the info is essentially identical, it probably came from the same press release. There's no point having it twice that I can see - what is the justification for including duplicate information on the page? WLU 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I quote "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are merit able, accessible and appropriate to the article:
I see merit. You do not. It is another source and has more info. It is not a problem that it remains. It violates no policy; it is not anything that you read. Seeing as how in your own words you cannot stand Goodkind or his works...that leaves only one other possablity? So again I ask that you stop nit picking to start a fight. It is not the link itself (Seeing as how its been there for a good long time...), but rather me is the only reason you want to remove it. As you have said to others you'll agree with them, but not mystar.
- I see many other precedence of similar information being provided on other pages as external links, so again, having the links is not a violation, and is in fact allowable. You have made countless statements since your starting here, you hate Goodkind and wish to smear his name (and mine), so it is more than abundantly clear that the only reason you do edit Goodkind's pages is to try and nit pick and start a fight. As much as you abhor Goodkind one can easily make that leap< As we can indeed see it is not a voilation at all Mystar 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is another source with the same information, coming from the same press release - it's even got the same quote. What is the extra info and merit that the link you keep reverting has? I couldn't find it, nothing that relates to this page. A short statement of this 'important information' rather than another accusation of bad faith would shut me up. And if it is adding extra info, it should be a reference, not an external link. And it is the 'minimum' of the EL policy that I'm pointing to - having an extra link that says the same thing as one of the references is not a minimum, it is superfluous. It may be meritalbe, accessible and appropriate, but it is duplication. This link adds nothing to the reader that is not already there. The reason I removed it last week was because of this edit, which brought my attention to the external links section. Notice that I did not try to remove the interview information because it adds to the page something that couldn't be in a reference but does provide something valuable. It is an appropriate external link.
- If you see precedents in other pages, perhaps those links should be removed. Which pages did you see it on, I'll have a look and let you know if I think it should be removed for the same reason, or explain why I think it's valuable to keep. WLU 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And let you terrorize those pages? I think not. As I said it does nto say it is forbiden or cannot stay.Mystar 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (moved from here Thats odd, I see where I clearly stated it was due to "content" and that it is allowable under the very policy that you listed. Again I ask you to stop trying to create drama where none exists. WP:EL clearly states that it is "ok" but to be careful not to add too much, as I addressed on the talk page. You seem to be under the impression that only your opinion has any validity. Please try not to engage in a witch hunt Mystar 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have not addressed what content within the link is useful to the article. From what I can see, there is nothing in the external link which adds to the article. There is no added content and added benefit to having the link in the page, it is just taking up memory. You say it adds content to the article, but I can't see what it is adding. And if it is useful content, it should be integrated as a reference. The reason I think it should be removed is because I can't see where it could go as a reference, barring a second reference for the SoT being turned into a series. The policy says meritable links. Because the information is already covered in the 'press release' reference, the external link has no merit, it's just duplication. WLU 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
External link
Here is a breakdown of the verbatim material from the coming soon link and the book standard link:
http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878399
- 1 Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, and his producing partner Joshua Donen, will develop a miniseries based on Terry Goodkind’s bestselling “Sword of Truth” series. Production will begin within a year, with Wizard’s First Rule, the first book in the series.
- 2 Goodkind, who has previously turned down film offers, was struck by Raimi and Donen’s idea for a miniseries.
- 3 “It’s a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent and ability,” Goodkind said in a statement released today. “Given Sam’s sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini series will be a watershed event.”
- 4 Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan.
- 5 Raimi is currently wrapping Spider-Man 3, with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15750
- A "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and his producing partner Joshua Donen have optioned rights for Terry Goodkind's bestselling "Sword of Truth" adventure series, published by Tor Books.
- B Having been approached by Hollywood a number of times over the past decade, Goodkind was never convinced that his 400,000 word novels could be successfully compressed into worthwhile feature films. In a meeting at the author's home, the renowned director and producer instead conceived of a groundbreaking mini-series. Within two hours Goodkind was sold on the concept and negotiations commenced. Ten months later the deal was finally concluded.
- C "It's a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent, and ability," Goodkind said. "Given Sam's sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini-series will be a watershed event."
- D All of Goodkind's novels have been international bestsellers. Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print. The "Sword of Truth" series began with "Wizard's First Rule" in 1994. The 10th novel in the series, "Phantom," is on sale now. The 11th and final volume is under contract and will be published in 2008.
- E Raimi and Donen hope to begin production of the opening mini-series, "Wizard's First Rule," within the next year, to be followed by ensuing volumes of the epic novels. The development process will begin while Raimi completes Spider-Man 3.
- 1 and A are the same information.
- 2 and B are the same information.
- 3 and C are the same quote
- 4 and D are different information about book publishing. Of the 2, the coming soon is the better info for the TG page as it's got information about the number of languages and copies in print.
- 5 and E are the same information.
There is nothing in the book standard link that is not in the coming soon link in greater detail. There is no reason to have this link in the external links. Can anyone see any reason to include the book standard link, based on this comparison of information? WLU 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How wonderful! You see, as there is differing information on each link there is no problem keeping them both. As I've stated in previous statements, there is not problem in any wikipedia policy in having these. I'm sure what with all your heavy lifting and exhastive brutual editing of so many pages in need of help, this is a minor and frivilous item. So again as I've stated while some material may well be ooverlaping, they do haev different material and that does not violate any policy. Mystar 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Read more closely, particularly the first sentence of the conclusion of my last reply, now in bold. Allow me to re-state. There is nothing in the bookstandard link that is not in the comingsoon link in greater detail. The information may be worded differently, but the content is the same. Just because it does not directly violate a policy does not mean it should be on the page. I am asking as plainly as I can: you say "they do haev different material" - what material is different? Please tell me what material you see covered in the bookstandard link that is not covered in the comingsoon link that is in any way germane to the article. If you don't tell me, I'm going to remove the link again because it serves no purpose on the page. Please show me the relevant information that means the bookstandard link should stay up. WLU 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let me try a different way - how does the link enhance the article? How does having the book standard link add value to the article beyond the coming soon link? If the bookstandard link were removed, what would readers miss out on that is not captured in the coming soon link? WLU 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Fantasy Author Category
GOODKIND CLAIMS NOT TO BE A FANTASY AUTHOR THEREFOR ETHE ATG SHOULD BE REMOVED!!!! Smith Jones 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- While Goodkind considers himself to be "more of a novelist" he also acknowledges that he writes fantasy. The issue is largely semantics but nothing is harmed by including him in the "fantasy author" category as he is both percived (and marketed) as a fantasy author and has said he is as much. I will be reinserting the category and would appreciate it if you would no longer unilateraly remove it. NeoFreak 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- okay fine. Smith Jones 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While Goodkind's work is more than the general "fantasy" than is typically seen in those genera, it is nevertheless sole as a fantasy novel. Having the term "Epic Fantasy" is in no way demeaning nor detrimental to Goodkind or how he and his fans perceive his Novels. While it is true they are heralded as, philosophical works and having deep romantic themes, they are more than simple "Epic Fantasy", yet they are sold as such, and therefore should be listed in the category they are marketed. As Neofreak says Terry does state that he is not writing fantasy, he also states that he is using the term in a generalization, and goes further to state that he does acknowledge that his works are fantasy. That does not negate the fact that the deeper elements are there and remain. Mystar 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- OKAY i get it shut up!!! Smith Jones 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think something needs to be added here, as the wiki is used as a review or explanation for the theme of the book. Perhaps editting may be performed. In any case, it is pretty significant that there has been a conflict between staple readers of the sword of truth series and Terry Goodkind, due to a misunderstanding of the entire theme of the series. Jasonred 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Any material about that conflict would need to be have reliable and significant sources, as one of Misplaced Pages's core policies prevents the addition of unpublished material, or original research. The material you have added to the article, while it may or may not be accurate, lacks such sources, and reads like an individual's commentary rather than an encyclopedic overview of existing opinion. Unless someone can produce references to support your analysis (which, given how thoroughly such topics have been hashed over in the past, seems unlikely), it will have to be removed from the article. If the conflict between Goodkind and some of his readers is in fact significant, it will have been mentioned by some reliable source. Brendan Moody 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the reversion. I had previously removed a section that stood out as especially unfounded, but it does appear that the edits after that revision were original research. Sorry, Jasonred. Zenithan 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Creatures_in_The_Sword_of_Truth
Ikip (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Politics / Influence
I'm not a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages, but imo there should be some mention - beyond simply noting his admiration for Rand and her perspective - of his hardline right-wing politics and it's appearance in his novels. There are very strong right-wing themes and perspectives woven into his major series. It's blatant, unrelenting, and i don't understand why, if there is to be a mention of his political perspective at all, that it is not more clearly noted. He is rabid in his support for the American right-wing, and it features strongly in his 'The Sword of Truth' series.
Also, any 'Influences' section is dramatically lacking if it does not mention Goodkind's borderline plagiarism of Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. I don't have the time or energy to provide examples or go into any greater detail, but perhaps if someone else shares my opinion / observation they could elaborate here.
The guy is a rip-off artist, and an ideological hardliner that seeds his 'fantasy' novels with right-wing propaganda. Imo, the 'Influences' section, if nothing else, should note this more clearly. Thanks for reading, and regards to all.
Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.160.103 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a person who reads many different authors and who occasionally ready wikipedia to learn a little about the authors I read, I notice that when an author writes fiction that is politically conservative, some person complains. Not so when a writer uses his pen/voice to espouse liberal views. Just an interesting point. Makes me wonder. Why? Is the perception that people are going to jump to a political view they didn't hold before, because they read a book? I couldn't care less what Mr. Goodkind's political views are. No more do I care how the writers of the other books on my reading list voted in the last election. I read to learn as well as be intertained and that means reading fiction and non-fiction from writers with political and philosophical views that span the gamut of viewpoints. Goodkind bothers me no more than does King, Jordan, Perry, Funke, Ross, Perry or Asimov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.179.15 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "right-wing". Terry Goodkind is a self-proclaimed objectivist, and these ideals come across quite clearly in his novels, but there's a big difference between Objectivism and Conservatism, which I assume is what you mean. As far as comparisons to Robert Jordan's work, yes, there are many similarities, but to my knowledge there hasn't been any scholarly comparisons between the two series. And that is the point I'm working towards: You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but without some references or reliable sources, then your opinions are just original research.
- Feel free to add to the influences section, but be aware that any contributions that don't have objective, third party citations will be removed. - Runch (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- One problem is there is no indication in the article of the darker themes of the Goodkind's books, including repetitive themes about torture and rape. --Silentbob7843920 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- All such analysis in an article must have already been published by a reliable source. If you are aware of such material, feel free to add it to the article, or else direct other editors to it on this talk page. But just because you or I notice it in the reading of his works, or it appears on someones blog or fansite, that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- TheRedPenOfDoom, a warning about the explicit nature of Goodkind's Sword of Truth books is very appropriate. I thought I had a strong stomach until I stumbled across the vile imagery in Goodkind's books. With a mere pen, Goodkind's artful implications have succeeded in portraying vile savagery in a way that no movie or television program has ever achieved. This constitutes the exceptional character to Goodkind's work that distinguishes it from that of the other more-moderate fantasy authors. I doubt I would let a child of mine read the Goodkind books until s/he was in their late teens. BlueRobe (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many of these include blogs and forums, however many if not most reviews (even if favourable) include a warning about the graphic nature of the novels. For example: http://www.sfreviews.net/wizardrule.html, "The violence gets a bit excessive after a certain point.", http://www.allreaders.com/Topics/info_533.asp?BSID=159891806 ""Sword of Truth is a poorly written, highly derivative story about a forest guide who is given the titular weapon. It has an excessive, prolonged section of torture. Redundant writing and a lack of originality plague this book." Rebecca Davis, Resident Scholar ", "Style Accounts of torture and death? - very explicit references to deaths and torture", http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/jul/10/british-fantasy-awards-michael-moorcock "even the progressively crazier, more polemic, frankly dreadful Terry Goodkind. I ploughed through 12-book series – I like to know the ending – and yes, I have read the bizarro chicken sequence from Soul of the Fire.".Silentbob7843920 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- All such analysis in an article must have already been published by a reliable source. If you are aware of such material, feel free to add it to the article, or else direct other editors to it on this talk page. But just because you or I notice it in the reading of his works, or it appears on someones blog or fansite, that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- One problem is there is no indication in the article of the darker themes of the Goodkind's books, including repetitive themes about torture and rape. --Silentbob7843920 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is undeniably true that Goodkind weaves his political beliefs into his Sword of Truth books. Indeed, Faith of the Fallen is little more than a fantasised version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (along with a bit of The Fountainhead). However, would anyone be complaining if Goodkind was feeding us the usual left-wing rhetoric that most authors wantonly ram down our throats? BlueRobe (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda is incorrect wording. He is not advertising his political views. He is expressing them. He is not doing so to instigate violence or hatred or to sway a large population to his favor which is what propaganda is for. He has every right to say what ever he wants. It is his book. Keep in mind fiction writing is a work of art no different than a painting. If you don't like the color of the sky in a painting you don't tell the artist to redo it you simply don't buy it. If you don't like them then you can choose not to read them. As far as plagerizing goes I must laugh at this because I just went to the article for Paolini's Eragon. I only read the first book and had to stop because it was so irksome to read something from a kid who plagerized every single book he read. You can actually see the clear matches between things in his book and any other fantasy book. In fact I haven't read a fantasy book that he hasnt ripped off yet. To bad somebody couldn't write an article about children becoming authors before they actually know anything about life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miafina (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think people complain about Goodkind's politics because, unlike Stephen King or any of the others mentioned he pretty much rubs his readers' nose in it, with his strawmen arguments, endless political speaches and less than fair criticism at the left wing. Shades of gray do not exist in Goodkind's world -if you take his bizarre morals into account that is.
- Besides, and most importantly: wether you're a left winger or not the ideas he defends in his books are pretty questionable to say the least. Mr. Goodkind has stated in interviews that Richard Rahl is (obviously) his alter ego and responds to certain situations the same way he would respond. So in other words Goodkind advocates: killing people who preach left wing ideals (and keeping their ears as trophies), killing unarmed pacifists who object to war, attacking other nation's civilians and kicking nasty children in the jaw(!)
- I really don't see why people ask why his political views are an issue. I personally think they're downright sickening.
- Can somebody please tell me what's not downright fascist about all this?
- His less than fantastic writing skills (subtility was never his strongest point), plot holes, numerous BDSM scenes (gratuitous torture and rape), arrogant statement that he "doesn't write fantasy" (yeah right!), and let's say the 'remarkable similiarities' in his books to Robert Jordan's makes it all even less bearable for me (as, fo the unfain compairsions to Eragon, keep in mind that unlike the boy who wrote Eragon, Goodkind is actually a grown man, ripping off another author for 11 books instead of just one).
- - Joe Dharma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.40.243 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sort of at a loss here, the above comments are so mindbogglingly ironic...the words that spring to mind are "hamfisted propaganda" and "lies". "Subtility" (sic) obviously isn't their strong suit either. I'm only partway through the series, so I'm not sure which specific incidents the above poster twisted and misrepresented to fit their point, but the "nasty" girl kept a "playmate" (read:Officially Designated Physical, Mental and Verbal Abuse Victim) and was being groomed, and indeed aspired to be a mass murderer. And unless I'm mistaken the "pacifists" in question will turn out to be a violent bloodthirsty mob incited by the REAL Fascists, and resemble the angry villagers from Frankenstein, rather than something Gandhi would recognize as in line with pacifism. I'm sure there is room for a critique of his work, but based on facts, not on convenient exaggerations, lies, and what appears to be hatred of the man himself. PreciousRoi (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see the mention of his Randian views are in the lede but never in to main article. The lede should summarise the article. Also, is there any support for the fact that these views are so notable that they belong in the lede? It seems to be simply a piece of trivia about him. Ashmoo (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I somehow missed the section in the main article about Rand. But my point about its notability for the lede still stands. Ashmoo (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terry Goodkind. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6573502.html
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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.—Talk to my owner:Online 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
POV section dispute
"Reception" section is in violation of Misplaced Pages Neutral point of view policy.
Section does not represent "proportionately"
Section does not "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
From the NPOV article: "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." "Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others" "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another."
Explanation: The current postings in the reception section are appropriate in an isolated context, but presented as such give undue weight to the criticisms against the author and his works. There are no truly positive reviews posted, and the section gives an impression that the author and series is viewed negatively overall, despite the existence of positive reviews, its presence on many fantasy best-of lists, and best seller status. I would suggest that either: A. Additional positive review material be added to more accurately reflect the reception of the author and his works, or B. The section be removed in its entirety.
Apologies if this is written wrong, not a wiki editor, did my best though. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.217.117 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Not even a single positive review is mentioned here. I came here after reading one of his books, which I considered to be topnotch fantasy and the article lead me to believe that he is widely considered a bad author. I've realized from other sources that there are actually many people who share my views.
- Also a section titled "Reception" sounds weird to me in an article about an author. Naturally each of his works will have different reception. Also, no other authors which I looked up in Misplaced Pages has this section.
- I will wait a month, and if no other comments are added here, I'll delete the section.
- 88.80.249.131 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Facebook as a source
Someone added his official Facebook as a source. Is it reliable enough, or no? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- At the time, it was the only available source and, as you pointed out, is his official account. TOR has since confirmed, and I'll be adding that shortly. FeralDruid (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Critisms
No one has acknowledged the critisms of Mr. GoodKind. Is it because everyone here is trying to make him seem positive? No offense, but a lot of people have critized him, and he steals his ideas from others. (this has been proven and stated by reputable sources.) This section is important. Danglerofhell (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Nebraska articles
- Mid-importance Nebraska articles
- WikiProject Nebraska articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class novel articles
- Mid-importance novel articles
- C-Class Sword of Truth task force articles
- Top-importance Sword of Truth task force articles
- WikiProject Novels articles
- C-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics