Talk:John Grisham/Archive 1

Archive 1

New book

John Grisham has a new book coming out on January 11, 2005 called "The Broker". Could someone please add this to the novels of John Grisham in the little table at the bottom of the page.

You could. Anyone may edit here, that's what Wikipedia is all about. -- Patrice Neff 18:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added The Broker to the Grisham template (Template:Grisham). EagleOne 21:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Language in the Books

Arguably, Grisham's books would be better if his dialogue were better written. Few characters are angry, or enraged, or infuriated, or annoyed; they are simply "pissed." When his characters are mad, they say "Shit." Grisham does a great job with pacing, with plots, and so forth, but the actual dialogue is often dubious.

Clinton connection cited in "Biography and career"

It appears that the Clinton connection in the "Biography and career" part of this article is being disputed in the article itself. Does anyone have information backing up the claim that Grisham is Bill Clinton's sixteenth cousin?

If not, I say remove this item. It appears to currently be flame-y as last edited, at best. --Takeel 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this the source of the claim that Bill Clinton is related to Grisham? --Takeel 19:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What's this "Jonathan Bommes" business?

The article begins John Grisham, Jonathan Bommes (born February 8, 1955). What is this "Jonathan Bommes"? Did he change his name from Jonathan Bommes to John Grisham? Is Jonathan Bommes his legal name and John Grisham his pen name? Or has he occasionally used the name Jonathan Bommes for some works? This needs to be explained.

If it is the first, then the article should begin -- John Grisham, (born Jonathan Bommes on February 8, 1955). Later in the article it should mention when and why he changed his name.

If it is the second, then the article should begin -- John Grisham is the pen name of writer Jonathan Bommes (born February 8, 1955). Later in the article, it should mention when and why he started using a nom de plume.

If it is the third, then the article should begin -- John Grisham (who sometimes uses the pen name Jonathan Bommes). Later in the article, it should mention for what works he has used the name Jonathan Bommes and why. [User:Acsenray|Acsenray]] 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Much Longer Synopsis for The Broker

The Broker has a much, much longer synopsis than the other novels. It seems like that sort of detail should be put in a separate article on the novel. Jeff Fenstermacher 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"reverse chronology" of works

I object to the listing of the author's works from newest to oldest. It should be the other way around, in order to see the development/evolution of his work. Is there a standard somewhere in Wikipedia? SidP 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. Most are old to new so someone should format this. Skinnyweed 02:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vadalism"

I noticed his book titles had been editted to make them sound more perverse. I changed the ones I knew, but as I am not an avid Grisham reader, I left alone those I couldn't remember 100% correctly. If someone could edit "The in Bed Partner" to what the book title actually is, I and many others would probably appreciate it.

Done. Skinnyweed 02:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is too much vandalism on this page, can it be protected so that registered users edit it?--PremKudva^Talk 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Born at age 53?

The summary in the box at the top right says that John Grisham was aged 53 at birth. I don't know hoe to edit the text to remove that. pr (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Political life

It is stated at the end of this section that "After a sexual harrassment suit and several corruption charges he was forced to resign from public office." with a footnote. However, the source does not mention anything about such charges, it is instead a list of his past campaign contributions. I'm removing the text until a source is found. A student of history (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Grisham - is it pronounced "Gri-shem" or "Gris-ham"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.200.110 (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The former. Enigma ^message 07:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration for first novel

On the John Grisham page it states that the inspiration for his first novel was from hearing the testimony of a 12 year old rape victim but on the A Time to Kill page it says the inspiration is from hearing the testimony of a 10 year old rape victim - which is correct?69.41.192.218 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Improve sources

Given Grisham's success, much has been written about him by reliable academics and other sources. Editors should seek additional third-party sources for material; too much content is based on his website.Parkwells (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comrade,

I've tried to make the article more referenced by adding more third party sources. What do you think about removing This Article Needs Additional Citations for Verification tag at the beginning of the article? There is still much to be done but what little information is available is well referenced according to me Sin un nomine (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I need a little help

I joined the Wikipedia only an hour ago and I've made my first edit to the Career section of this article. The problem, however, is that I've taken the information from a single source (The New York Times) but I'm not able to figure out how to avoid putting seven different links of same source in the References section. Sin un nomine (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone edit the info box

In John Grishams info box (the box on the right side, I don't know the official name of it) at the bottom, it says genres: legal thriller, crime fiction, football. Football should be changed to baseball. I would do this myself but the article is protected. Thanks.

Cruel hand (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone correct this?

I do not understand this: "Her lawyer, thinking that a decision by just a judge who had never handed over a punishment of death before, backfired".16:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.40.48 (talk)

Lede

'Grisham is one of only three authors to sell 2 million copies on a first printing...' I think the title of the novel in question should be quoted.

Also in the lede, I think there should be a few words defining his particular brand, beyond just 'legal thriller', and the quality that marks it out. Valetude (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

2 million copies...

In the article lede, it says "A Galaxy British Book Awards winner, Grisham is one of only three authors to sell 2 million copies on a first printing."

However, the source cited says "Along with Tom Clancy, he is one of only two authors to sell 2 million copies on a first printing."... does anyone have a source to show that a 3rd author has achieved this?

I've had a quick look but haven't found this. Thanks PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Trimming unencyclopedic materials

Hello - earlier, I removed two sections from the article as unencyclopedic. @Thewolfchild: reverted me, so i think we should discuss. The first section I removed was a list of characters who appear in multiple books - this is an indiscriminate collection of trivia that services no encyclopedic purpose. It is also a little scattergun, eg characters who appear only in one book plus a prequel are included. There are also unencyclopedic descriptions of people: "An extremely wealthy tort lawyer, riding around in his private jet plane." The second section I removed was a literary essay on recurring themes in Grisham's works, this is clear original research. Does anyone object if I remove them again? Amisom (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As to the first section; if you have issues with how any of it is written, then feel free to improve it. Otherwise, this content is about Grisham's works, and since it's regarding interrelated content and this is the only centralized page regarding his works, where else would it go? As for the second section; you oppose content regarding literary themes among an author's literature, in an encyclopaedia article about that author? Really? Or is it solely because you feel it's "original research"? (which clearly it isn't, as it's supported by the author's book themselves). Each section includes a link to the very book it's referring to. Were you under the impression that "<ref>" tags were required? How is this any different than plot synopses found in the various film and television show articles here? So WP:OR is covered, and as for WP:NOT, the first section here falls under point #1; "design" and the second section here falls under point #1; "development". Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Have a nice day - wolf 22:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @Thewolfchild:. But... as to the list of characters, you haven't addressed my point about WP:INDISCRIMINATE at all. Sure the list is 'accurate' (up to a point) but so would be a list of the lengths of Grisham books by number of words. It doesn't mean its useful information that should go in an encyclopedia article about a living person. Lists of recurring characters, especially including some characters that aren't really recurring, is clearly something that falls within INDISCRIMINATE. As that policy says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

As for the 'recurring themes', this is clearly original research. It is not supported by the books themselves, it is interpretive analysis of the sort that belongs in a literary journal. Yes, I am saying that <ref> tags are obligatory... and not to the books, but to scholarly works making the arguments made by the analysis. Eg "Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike of mega law firms" – how do you know what the writer likes and dislikes? They're works of fiction. "the characters doing it retain the reader's sympathy" — how do you know how 'the reader' reacts? This is clearly original research, just like one person might read Othello and say that the main theme is jealousy, and another might read it and say that the main theme is race. You will also wish to read WP:PSTS, which says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." whereas Grisham's books are the primary source.

This material needs to be removed and I look forward to your agreement. Amisom (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

For the first section, claiming it's not "useful" is not a reason to remove. And while I doubt many would find the "number of pages or words" in Grisham's books of interest (who knows? Maybe some would) that's not what is being discussed. We are discussing an existing list of specific characters that have recurring appearances in his books, basically establishing a "Grisham universe". That is the sort of thing that is found in this encyclopaedia. If there was a page for his works, separate from his bio, then I would suggest that content go there, but no such page exists as of yet. Either way, is it noteworthy, is supported by the works themselves, and is a part of the "design" aspect of his works; the creating and furthering of this interrelated world, and its stories that share common threads, and thus have more in common that just the author himself. There has been a subsection regarding this, in one form or another, since mid-2012, with the notation of the Theodore Boone series. That expanded to included the fictional Clanton, Miss. based stories, then the stories lead by Jake Brigance, and so on. The section has grown and changed over time, with numerous contributions by various editors. With all those editors, and all the years it's been there, that is a great deal of implied consensus to just sweep away with a single edit. But I have suggested that if you feel it needs improvement, by all means, do some copy-editing. But to outright just completely remove it altogether, you would need a consensus for that.

As for the second section; it is common to have content regarding the literary themes of authors and their works included in their articles here. And much like the movie and TV plots aren't supprted by descriptions from third parties via secondary sourcing (with "ref" tags,) as that would likely lead to copyvios, the content regarding the themes here is supported by the author's own works. With that said however, I will concede that I find sub-headings such as "dislike of big lawfirms" to be clunky and amateurish, and will also concede that this content should only be limited to facts supported directly by the books. Anything further, such as interpretive conclusions, should be supported by reliable sources. So again, I will say, feel free to 'FIXIT'. I would start with some copy-editing to re-write what can be improved, and/or add "citation needed" tags ({{cn}}), remove only what egregiously bad, and go from there. There is more to building an encyclopaedia than just going around removing and deleting stuff. - wolf 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. I think you fail to understand the import of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR, and nothing you've typed suggests that you've even read them. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to re-delete the sections, because I think they plainly violate policy, and you have not queried that conclusion. If you disagree, I invite you to start a discussion either here (using WP:RFC) or at the original research noticeboard) to gather outside input. Amisom (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Have you actually read WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR? Yes or no? Amisom (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read anything but them? - wolf 14:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours. Amisom (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That's not how it works. You don't just arbitrarily claim "I'm right because I think you're wrong!", throw in a WP:PA like "you haven't read the guidelines noted" and revert again. Per BRD, you have boldly removed content, I reverted, that is followed by discussion. Just because the discussion isn't going exactly the way you like, does not mean you suddenly declare "discussion over! My edit stands!". If you feel that no agreement can reached here, your next step is to go to dispute resolution. - wolf 13:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You're not discussing. You've not engaged with any of the poitns I've made. You haven't referred to any of the policies I quoted. You're just whining that a section of the article you like got deleted because it violates a core content policy. Amisom (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoa... you need to calm down, especially with the personal attacks. I'll say again, just because a discussion is not going exactly the you wanted, or expected, is no reason to blow up like you have. You need to focus on edits, not editors (and definitely give this a read). I certainly have tried to engage with you here and discuss the content in question. Just because I haven't said; "Hmm, you're right! This clearly violates WP:OR and WP:NOT! You should remove it right away!" does not mean that I am trying to reach an understanding with you. And quite frankly, you're accusations that I am acting in bad faith are just another personal attack. That is not how collaborative editing works. As I said before, this is a content dispute. If we can come to an agreement, and you still wish to pursue it, then like an adult, simply agree to disagree and go to dispute resolution. Have you tried that? (Have you read it?) - wolf 14:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling someone to go to dispute resolution a half hour after they opened an RfC? GMG^talk 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: A third opinion was requested here, but as a third editor has already been drawn into the discussion from the RfCs, I have removed the request from the list at WP:3O. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on 'recurring characters' section

Should the (alleged) recurring characters be listed in the article or does this content fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Remove it Sure the list is 'accurate' (up to a point) but so would be a list of the lengths of Grisham books by number of words. It doesn't mean its useful information that should go in an encyclopedia article about a living person. Lists of recurring characters, especially including some characters that aren't really recurring, is clearly something that falls within INDISCRIMINATE. As that policy says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - doesn't belong in his bio article. Having said that, there are options, I searched the first one on the list - Jake Brigance, and got two hits, (didn't look further) - Jake USA Today and Jake NYT that discuss him as a recurring character, and then there is Mitch McDeere, an entire article based on a fictional character from The Firm. This content could be forked off in a number of ways. Just start to type "List of fictional characters...." in the search bar and see how many hits you get. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on 'recurring themes' section

Should the (alleged) recurring themes be included in the article or does this content fall under WP:NOR? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Remove it clearly original research. It is not supported by the books themselves, it is interpretive analysis of the sort that belongs in a literary journal. Eg "Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike of mega law firms" – how do you know what the writer likes and dislikes? They're works of fiction. "the characters doing it retain the reader's sympathy" — how do you know how 'the reader' reacts? This is clearly original research, just like one person might read Othello and say that the main theme is jealousy, and another might read it and say that the main theme is race. See WP:PSTS, which says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." whereas Grisham's books are the primary source. Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC?

@Amisom: As I said above, if you feel discussion won't or can't lead to an agreement or consensus, then your next step is dispute resolution. This is a content dispute. - wolf 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. RFC. I followed the instructions at WP:DR and WP:RFC carefully. Amisom (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I must've missed the part that said; "Step 1: start an RfC"... - wolf 14:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I think maybe you did: Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for mediation (RFM), you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate. Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request. We made "at least an effort to discuss the matter" (well at least I did), that came to nothing, so I opened an RfC. Instead of whinging about the fact that I've invited discussion, why not particpate and help to build the consensus? What do you think of the comment from GreenMeansGo below? Amisom (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amisom: You most certainly did not follow the instructions at WP:RFC carefully. If you had, you would have added a timestamp, or timestamped signature, to the opening statements (see WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief); and you would not have added {{rfc|media}} twice in the same edit (see WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• The recurring themes is clear original research. The recurring characters doesn't technically need citation, since it can be cited to the works themselves, but >400 words dedicated to trivia is UNDUE. This is a biography about the person, and lengthy delving into to a world of fictional characters is off topic. GMG^talk 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  And I've already conceded that the themes section should be sourced. As for the recurring characters, this is more than just trivia, but that aside, size was not brought up, (other than when I noted that this section has been continuously built up by numerous editors over the last seven years). I have repeatedly stated, however, that copy-editing is an option here. - wolf 14:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  But it's off topic and comes under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As I said. I never said that it was unsourced, just that it was an indiscriminate collection of pointless trivia that does not relate to the subject of the article. Those numerous editors who built it up appear to have been wrong. Perhaps they hadn't read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Have you? (Glad to see you accept that the Themes section should be removed as it currently stands though.) Amisom (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yea, it's basically just trivia, and has much more to do with the fictional universe than the subject of the article. Yes, if a theme section is one day written using reliable sources, it may be appropriate. This one isn't, and this is a BLP. So we remove unsourced original research until a time if or when someone writes sourced content. We don't keep it in the article on the off chance that eventually happens. GMG^talk 14:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, like I said, it started back in 2012 and been continuously built up by numerous editors since then. Yes, this is a BLP, but where else should all these editors denote themes and recurring characters and common settings, unless you're proposing splitting off a "Works of..." page? - wolf 16:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  They shouldn't denote the themes at all unless and until they find a reliable secondary source to substantiate the arguments being made. If you want to create a page List of recurring characters in John Grisham books, I think you'd still struggle to justify it given WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTPURP, but feel free to try to gain a consensus for the idea (or be WP:BOLD and give it a try, see what the community thinks).

  What is clear is that both myself and User:GreenMeansGo are clear on is that this content does not belong on this page and should be removed. Amisom (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  If they can't back up the information with reliable sources, the appropriate place to document the information is somewhere other than Wikipedia. GMG^talk 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  The themes section begins Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike... which is unsourced and in violation of biographies of living persons policy by claiming what Grisham dislikes. That statement should be immediately removed without discussion. The rest should be removed as original research. The Recurring characters section should be removed as unsourced non-notable trivia. There are several other problems but no need to go into them. I think the Southern settings subsection of Writing career (where the above would belong if it was notable) is also largely trivia, in that it lists things without saying why it is important. The only part which actually ties in with relevance to his biography being the last line which mentions a novel set in a town where he once lived – though that unsourced statement is in violation of BLP policy and should be immediately removed. I would point out that having a source is necessary not just for attribution but for notability. Lists require a reliable secondary source to show that the way items are associated in the list is in some way notable, and that it's not just an arbitrary collection of things that the editor thought was important (ie: original research). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3rd opinion. While I have conceded both on the points that sourcing is needed as well as copy-editing, there is another editor who doesn't seem very interested at all in either collaboration or contribution, just deleting everything and anything, as much as possible. There are articles about authors that discuss the themes of their works as well and concepts in common such as settings and recurring characters. I guess for now, this page won't be one then. - wolf 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s right - this page won’t be one unless and until reliable secondary sources are found, Amisom (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the way it works. We find sources first and then add to the article, not the other way around. BLP policy is particularly strict in this regard. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, I had to move my !vote to the correct RfC, as it's confusing the way it's set up. Hence, I made each RfC (characters and themes) into their own sections so it's not so damn confusing. You might want to add a discussion sub-section as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• John grisham complete.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)