Talk:John Burdett

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== New edits == Edited up the article stealing (but rephrasing) some good lines: reads well now like the novel(s) (I've only read one but will shortly be reading both the other two...).

Next task is only to put Bangkok 8 back into this article as the stub isnt warranted althouph no doubt if and when the movie comes out there will be a new expanded section for it. (Not sure how the movie will handle the narration - yes it has to be narrated in order to catch that reflective meditativenes (as I explained in my new edit - and if they dont do that then the movie will almost certainly be a lousey flop! --- you can bet on that: and be warned!!!) Mattjs (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV moved to discussion page:

"... are something of a cross between Sherlock Holmes, Carl Jung, and the Buddha." --Gallery of soldiers (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text reworded. Original text moved to discussion:

"With one foot in each culture (having spent much of his childhood in Europe) his differentness leaves him both and a keen cultural anthropologist whose principles are as admirable as his insights, which more often than not, are both professionally useful and deliciously amusing."

Text is somewhat POV. --Gallery of soldiers (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of POV Claims and Literary Interpretation...

There is little that one can say in an article that (whether it purports to or not) must in detailing an author's work digress inevitably into the contents of it. Any attempt to do so will be met by POV claims in fact _any_ literary analysis is by its nature a "Point Of View" aka "interpretation". I don't object to editing per se but what I do object to is the editing of otherwise fine and expressive English into a poor "lowest common denominator" that approaches the grammatically incorrect sub-standard one might expect of either the young or those for whom English is not their mother tongue. Put simply it annoys the hell out of eloquent native speakers to return and find an otherwise well written article "banal-" or "bland-ified". I will be back to revert taking note of comments here and alledged POV refs in these edits. Mattjs (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare: "With one foot in each culture (having spent much of his childhood in Europe) his differentness leaves him both ...[unbribable?] and a keen cultural anthropologist whose principles are as admirable as his insights, which more often than not, are both professionally useful and deliciously amusing." plus the fragment "something of a cross between Sherlock Holmes, Carl Jung, and the Buddha."

With: "Sonchai has spent much of his childhood in Europe and USA, and has acquired cultural insights."

Please tell which is more descriptive, accurate and needles to say constitutes the more expressive English prose? Anyone!?

This is not the first well written article at Wikipedia that I have seen needlessly dumbed down. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Stick to using your computer for playing video games and leave the real business of editing articles at wikipedia to those who can write expressive english and bother to put the effort in to do so, rather than just replacing good prose with exceedingly lazily thrown-in one-liners. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well my verdict seems to be a unanimuos one (silence truly is golden as Sonchai would undoubtedly concur) so that when the next novel - Vulture Peak - comes out and I have finished reading it I will come back to revise (e.g. revert) but also extend the article... 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Since no one has come back to even dare to challenge my perfectly reasonable arguments (I will let you call them assertions if you like) unanimity follows from the lack of comment so that the "This section contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2013)" will now be removed from the article forthwith as more than enough time for arguments and challenges has indeed passed. And this is very expressive English indeed. 123.2.45.31 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 123.2.45.31 (talk)[reply]

“Stars”

Any reason why the word stars is in quotes? I will remove the quotes. In the current era many movies and miniseries are produced without stars. Phersh (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]