Jump to content

Talk:Len Deighton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Surely "An expensive place to die" is a "Harry Palmer" Novel also, as I've seen a Michael Caine interview in which he say's he regrets not having made that book into a movie. Regards Steve

Please provide a link to this quote if possible, as it is considered that, although featuring another unnamed spy writing in the first person, aEPtD is actually a different spy to Harry Palmer. However, possibly either the book could have been adapted into featuring Harry Palmer just because Michael Caine would be starring in it, or Caine would be playing this 'different' spy.
Or maybe Michael Caine just read the book wrong, and thought it was Harry Palmer, when it isn't. The Yeti 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The nameless character, known in the film adaptations as "Harry Palmer", who is from Burnley, works for WOO(C)P, and whose boss is Dawlish and secretary/girlfriend is Jean, only appears in the first four novels--the others are about a different nameless spy working for a different intelligence branch. Grackle 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little more complex than that. In one of the subsequent "nameless spy" novels, Dawlish (the "boss" of WOOC(P)) in all but the first of the earlier novels) reappears at a party (I regret that I do not have the books handy for reference purposes); so while it's clear that the hero is working for someone else, it seems to be the same hero. [Note that it's WOOC(P); we know from a remark of Ross's that the "P" stands for Provisional, and it's reasonable to assume that WO stands for "War Office."] 70.196.144.109 18:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) EJBleendreeble

I don't recall that WOOC(P) ever having its meaning spelled out. As for Dawlish, he shows up at a dinner party in 'Spy Story.' He also shows up in 'Yesterday's Spy,' though by then apparently WOOC(P) had become merely 'the Department.' Toddrk (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fighter" (1977) and "The Battle of Britain" (1980)

What is the difference between these two books (the first of which I possess, the second of which I do not)? The text seems to confuse them.

Cast your gaze down a few paragraphs. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction

I have renamed the 'Harry Palmer' novels as 'Unnamed Hero' as one of the conceits of these stories was that hero was never named. 'Harry Palmer' was invented for the inferior films. I have also added 'An Expensive Place To Die' to this list as it was one of them.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While 'An Expensive Place to Die' indeed features an unnamed protagonist, it is far from clear that he is indeed the same one as from the previous four novels. One of the factors arguing against this is the 'packet' included in the first printings imply that this agent has been already in place for some considerable time.

Arguably, 'Spy Story' could be the same character as the first four especially as 'Pat Armstrong' personally knows both Dawlish and Stok. Also, 'Catch a Falling Spy' has an unnamed spy working under Colonel Schlegel introduced in 'Spy Story.' Finally, 'Yesterday's Spy,' also has a protagonist who was known in Nice during WWII as 'Charles' working for Schlegel and Dawlish. Sadly, none of this is at all conclusive. Toddrk (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that "Pat Armstrong" is the same bloke as the protagonist from the first four books as I reckon he's too young to have been in the Army in WW2. More plausible are the protagonists of "An Expensive Place To Die" and "Yesterday's Spy" being the same person because France. "Twinkle Twinkle Little Spy"? Could be "Pat Armstrong" again. Or not. Mr Larrington (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A query

Did Deighton really write two books one called 'Fighter - the true story of the Battle of Britain' and one simply called 'Battle of Britain' only three years apart? This seems unlikely. Can anyone clarify please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain was co-written by Max Hastings. Here's the reprint I have, here's a first edition. As I understand it, the book is a retread of Fighter, but with many more pictures and cut-away diagrams - an early go at multi-media. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've since got hold of a first edition of Fighter (back cover blurb by Albert Speer!), and they're definitely two different books; Battle of Britain has an entirely different text, although some of the photographs are the same. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Most famous" for The Ipcress File?

Given the quantity and variety of his published work, is it really correct to say at the very outset that he is perhaps most famous for "The Ipcress File"? 76.230.152.236 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deighton as a Historian

I understand he is an amateur historian? How are his books regarded by academics? Does he speak German? Drutt (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is Deighton pronounced: Dayton, Deeton, Defton or Dieton ? MW9123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.224.97 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's Deeton? According to some Internet sources, it's pronounced like Dayton.

Sly-ah (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Len Deighton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Len Deighton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 04:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I notice that in the first half of the article you describe the lead character in the first novels as "the unnamed protagonist", but in the second half you refer to him as "Harry"; it can't be both, so I think this will need to be reconciled for the sake of consistency.
    Clarified. Someone was edit watting a couple of weeks ago claiming there was no source for our text, when clearly there is a source there. It's all now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The sole image in the article is copyrighted, and I don't think the licence is valid for use in this article. Don't you have an image of Deighton somewhere?
    I've added a rationale for inclusion in this article (which I should have done first time, and had forgotten to do). There are no free images of Deighton we can use, and as he's still alive we can't use them here, which is a shame.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Hi Gatoclass, thanks for taking this on. There aren't any free images of Deighton, unfortunately, and the cookstrip is the only one that can have a real basis for being added. If we have to take it out entirely, it would be a shame, but understandable. I look forward to the rest of the review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
How about a non-free image? Would that be viable? Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am aware (and I know it used to be the case, but things could changed) we are not allowed non-free images of living people. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Gatoclass. Just seeing if everything is OK so far with the article, and if there is anything you need me to action? I've been watching your copy edits, all of which have been very beneficial. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Schrocat, apologies for the delay in getting back to this, but I simultaneously started 10 GAN reviews a few days ago in a futile attempt to stay in the Wikicup, and it's taking me a while to get around to all of them - especially since I'm now busy off-wiki as well! But I think I should be getting back to yours in a day or two, as I've nearly finished the current one. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem with the timeframe from my point: I just wanted to check it all seemed to be OK so far. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, unfortunately, in taking a closer look at this article the other day, I noticed that it has an issue I had previously overlooked. While the prose is fine, it seems clear to me now that it has a significant structural issue. This is with regard to the fact that a fair chunk of the content in the "Publishing history" section is repeated in the "Works" section. Even when it's not, it is disconcerting to have the information about individual works split between the two sections. Also, I have looked at other writer biographies and they do not follow this format.

To summarize, I am strongly inclined to close this nomination as a fail at this point, as I suspect it might take you a fair while to iron out the issues (also because the time I currently have available for assisting you in any such endeavour is very limited). I think however, that I should give you an opportunity to respond before doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you joking Gatoclass? I’ve patiently waited a month while this review has crawled along, and you now decide that you don’t like something about the structure and want to fail it? And you don’t give any examples of what you’re talking about, just a general hand-waving towards something that isn’t a criteria?
I don’t know what biographies you have been looking at, but have a look at Emily Dickinson, Noël Coward, E. W. Hornung, J. R. R. Tolkien, Evelyn Waugh and P. G. Wodehouse. You’ll see that like this article, there is a biography followed by an examination of the works, (history, style, impact, legacy, etc). There isn’t a huge amount about Deighton’s writing that covers this, but I’ve found what there is and put it in here. You’ll note the writer biographies above are all FAs.
If you don’t want to finally finish this review for some other reason, then walk away and flag for a second opinion, but the reason you’ve given is not a ground you can legitimately fail on. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, I'm seeing very little correspondence between the articles you list above and the format you've adopted here. The Dickinson article has a "Publication" section but not a "Works" section. Hornung integrates the publication with his biography, but again has no "Works" section. Tolkien does have an "Academic and writing career" section as well as a "Publications" section, but the only duplicated work treated at any length in both sections is his work on Beowulf, so it isn't as obvious. Evelyn Waugh integrates the publication into the biography, and again, has no "Works" section. And so on.
Rather than analyzing these other articles though, I agree that it might be better to give some concrete examples of the problems I'm seeing with this article. I'll try to post something to that effect a little later today. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Picking on the differences between the naming of the sections and the split in the articles seems an odd basis to fail a GA, particularly given the general point that these all have a split between the life biography at the start and an examination of their work in the second. You characterisation above isn't exactly accurate (for example, I wrote the Hornung article, and Deigton follows the same general pattern). - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but half of what's in the Works section in this article isn't an "examination" of the works at all, it just reads like an addendum to the Publishing career - "Oh, and he also published five cookery books and here's a couple more history books I didn't previously mention". There's no analysis of the works in question. Gatoclass (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Becuase I can't make the bloody stuff up, can I! There is no real anaysis of much of his work, just minor points here and there, which is what I have included here. I have included everything that is available in the reliable sources, and (as I mention below), also include the lesser works in this section. At some point (possibly after he dies), there will be a proper retrospective examination of his work, and at that point this section can be enlarged properly, but at the moment it covers what there is, without clogging up the biographical section with information that is not about Deighton but his work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that it can be difficult to create a cohesive article with a paucity of sources (though that might also serve as an argument for not nominating such an article in the first place). My point is simply that if you are going to have a separate section devoted to analysis - and it's obviously fine to do that - then that's what the section should do, it should not contain additional random mentions of works with no analysis.
While I don't have firm ideas about how these issues could be rectified, this GAN might be salvageable if, perhaps, you renamed the Works section to "Critical reception" or something similar and then only used it to record the remarks of critics. You could then either just leave the other stuff out or perhaps move it to the Publishing career section.
Alternatively, given the shortage of material, you could I suppose try ditching the Works section altogether and just try integrating the bit of critical analysis into the Publishing history section. But I'm really not sure how best to address the issues, I only know that the article doesn't look right to me in its current form. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"that might also serve as an argument for not nominating such an article in the first place": no, no no: there is nothing that says an article must be "complete" by the time it gets to any level of grading, just that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". We don't expect fully closed stories for any article. I haven't said the section is "devoted to analysis", just that this is where analysis is part of the contents of this section. The section covers information outside the initial biographical section. That first section includes information about him as a writer (including the major works he wrote), and how what he did led on to the publishing of other things.
I think we need a second opinion on this, as we could go round in circles debating what constitutes a GA and the balance in a biography, as I guess we're seeing completely different things here. Tim riley, you've written biographies at GA and FA levels, and about people with a range of occupations: do you have any thoughts on the split between the two areas on this? – SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, a few issues that stand out to me on going back and re-reading some of this. Firstly, you suddenly introduce two new history books in the Works section, Blitzkrieg and Blood, Tears and Folly. Why weren't these included in the Publishing career section? It's confusing and gives the impression of works just introduced randomly. Same with the Cookery books section, the Publishing career section gives a bit of background into his interest in cookery books but only mentions two cookbooks, while the Works section mentions five cookbooks, plus more cookstrips published in 2015. But for the novels, it's the opposite, the Publishing career mentions a whole stack of significant novels written by Deighton, while the "Works" section mentions only two. Then there are the multiple repetitions of information in both the Works and Publication history section that the reader doesn't need.

In short, while the prose is of an acceptable standard, the organization just appears to me to be chaotic. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The main works are picked out in the biography, the lesser works in the latter section. As we cover most of the works for novels in the main section, the focus is more on the available information about the style, impact, legacy, etc. Again, this is in line with numerous other biographies on WP, particularly at higher levels. While there may be some very small areas of overlap, this is to ensure that both sections can be read without a lack of comprehension for the reader. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment, as requested, from Tim riley. I should begin by saying that I am a personal friend of SchroCat irl, and that we have collaborated in WP on several Featured Articles. That being noted, my thought, as one who has reviewed dozens of GANs, is that we must make all allowances for a novice GAN reviewer such as Gatoclass. S/he is of course entitled to say how s/he would have structured the article, but we are supposed to judge a GAN against the prescribed criteria, of which WP:JDL is not one. I boggle at the notion that dividing an article into Life and Works is inappropriate. If that were so, many of my 47 successful FACs and SchroCat's 50+ would have failed. I hope this helps clarify matters. – Tim riley talk 08:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, getting a personal friend to give a second opinion is simply not appropriate. Secondly, it's a complete misrepresentation of my comments here to suggest that they amount to WP:JDL. I will not put my name to a promotion that I believe does not meet the criteria, so I'm failing this. If you think it's a pass Tim riley, then feel free to open a new review for your friend, I've made a good faith effort to get this article up to what I believe is an acceptable standard and have no interest in continuing to assist when it's clear my efforts are unappreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, this is one of the most petty and spiteful acts I've seen in a long time. I advised you go for a second opinion, and just because (with a quick and unoffical check) someone else doesn't agree with you, you fail it? That's a fairly silly little step to take. I wonder if there is a connection between you being dumnoed out of the Wikicup and you deciding not to bother with this is the cause. As you've not bothered assuming good faith with your comment about Tim riley, I don't feel bad about not assuming it with you, but you shold note two things: 1. I asked Tim because he is experienced in writing GA and FA biographies; secondly he did not have to add the information that he was my friend, but did so on the basis of full and open transparancy. Waiting over a month for a 'non-review' and a fail because you don't like something (and not allied to the GA criteria), is not a great way to approach a subject. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment It could do with a bit more biographical info but it looks reasonable enough to be a GA to me.† Encyclopædius 11:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would love there to be more biographical information, but there isn't much about him around (lots of interviews, lots of articles, but they all repeat the same informaiton over and over, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SchroCat, a second opinion would have been fine - but not from a ping to one of your friends. That is not appropriate, at all. But as you made it pretty clear you were not happy with my approach, I thought it best for both of us if I just closed the nomination. As I said, there is nothing to stop you renominating. Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
So why didn't you flag it for a second opinion, as asked? That would have been the appropriate step to take, rather than the inappropriate step of closing it without the option. The close, as it stands, is based on your personal dislike of something, not on the criteria. What a waste of a month sitting waiting for a review, only for you to decide you don't want to do it just after you have been dumped out of the Wikicup. Next time you want to play stupid games with the review process for something as vacuous as the Wikicup, then just try and imagine how you would feel is someone decided to treat one of your reviews so shabbily as you have treated this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, if this had been "all about the Wikicup", I could simply have taken the easy way out and given you a rubber stamp pass, days or even weeks ago. It was very difficult for me to make the decision to challenge you on the article structure, because I anticipated that you may not take it kindly, but in the end decided I would have to call it as I see it regardless. I had also considered just failing the article for the structural issue, as I couldn't see you ironing it out in a reasonable timeframe even if I were able to persuade you to do so. But I decided you were entitled to the opportunity to respond to my concerns. As it turned out, I was right about your reaction, and my next step would have been to ask if you wanted a second opinion. What I didn't anticipate was that you would ping one of your friends instead - somebody who would presumably be likely to support your own view. After the hard work I have done reviewing this article, how do you think an action like that would be likely to make me feel?
So I felt it best at that point just to close the nomination, as it seemed clear we were not going to agree on the way forward and any further discussion would be a waste of time. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"a reasonable timeframe"? It's taken a month to not do a review and then close it as your first proper act of review without giving me an option to work on it. It's a petty step to take to close it just because I asked the opinion of someone who has written and reviewed numerous GA and FA biographies. The fact that such an individual questioned it should have given you a moment to pause and go with the option I suggested: a second opinion. I am bemused as to why you didn't bother with that, and why you seem to want to blame this on "a reasonable timeframe". It's a ridiculous and tawdry step to fail this because you don't happen to like the structure - one that is used on numerous biographies at all levels. The fact another editor has also chipped in to say they cannot see a problem with the structure should make you question what you've done. I don't care enough about GA to give too much of a toss, but when I see second rate actions being taken because you go the hump at being challenged on your personal criteria, it is irksome. This has been a bad review Gatoclass. You've pissed abut for a month without given any comments or feedback - and that is not "a reasonable timeframe"; when you finally decided you couldn't be bothered to do a proper review, you've invented your own criteria and not given me as a nominator "a reasonable timeframe" to address the article, or to ask if you could read the criteria properly. And why you didn't flag the article for an independent second opinion when you'd been asked to do so by the nominator is something I cannot understand. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I am bound to say that Gatoclass's failure to AGF is offensive in the extreme. Writing his/her own rules rather than applying the GA criteria is irresponsible and selfish. I expect the snide insinuation about "open a new review for your friend" to be withdrawn with the necessary apology, which I will accept. Tim riley talk 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, Tim, I wouldn't mind an apology for the complete mischaracterization of my concerns on your part, and while we're on the topic of snideness, we are supposed to judge a GAN against the prescribed criteria, of which WP:JDL is not one isn't such a bad example itself. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You really are unrepentant, aren't you? Recognising that you had only four GAN reviews under your belt I tried to give you a helpful steer, and you now pretend that was in some way snide. Your objection to the layout of the article so plainly failed to correspond with anything in the GA criteria that I hoped, as I said, that I was being helpful. I did not accuse you of bad faith, as you have undeniably accused me: can you imagine - perhaps you can't - how hurtful it is to be asked why I don't "open a new review for your friend". If I do not receive a retraction and apology I shall take this further. I have never, in fourteen years on Wikipedia, had cause to pursue such a course before, and I find it sickening to have to do so now. Tim riley talk 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a terribly chaotic article structure, what's that all about?? You should see some of the stinkers I come across in terms of structure!† Encyclopædius 12:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it was terribly chaotic, just that it needed some work. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not even close to being "chaotic" though. There's nothing wrong with it!! † Encyclopædius 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
And you didn't bother to give the nominator any time to work on it - absolutely no "reasonable timeframe" after a month of not doing no proper review - or for the nominator to point out that your grasp of the criteria needs to be sharpened so you don't fail based on the criteria you fabricate on the spot. I expected more of what I thought was an experienced editor, but the spiteful and clueless close as soon as someone points to the criteria as the basis on which you should act shows just how shabbily you have acted here. You have had been second rate approach to this over the last month, and this final step is a very bad joke. What a waste of time this has been. Next time you decide to piss about with articles to get points for the Wikicup, make sure you do the job properly. these are the guidelines if there is an impasse. This suggests seven days as a reasonable timeframe to have the article on hold; that is what "a reasonable timeframe" is, not a few hours where you have a hissy fit because someone points you towards the criteria. Even then, there is the pathway of a second opinion, which I had already asked for. You've picked the worst of all pathways and one that has no basis in the instructions by which you are supposed to act. Don't piss about with reviews if you don't understand how they are supposed to work. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, I think you made it clear that you saw nothing wrong with the article, and after Tim's response, I concluded that the chance of getting either of you to change your mind was minimal. At that point I decided the nomination was going nowhere and it would be best to just save everybody's time and close it. Having said that, it's also true that I was annoyed by your tapping a buddy to weigh in on the nomination instead of letting me handle it via the usual process for a second opinion, and then further irritated by Tim's patronizing tone and completely unfounded charge of JDL. But having had some time to reflect on that overnight, I concede that my abrupt closure of the nomination was an overreaction, so I apologize for that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I am still waiting for you to withdraw your slur "open a new review for your friend". If you fail to do so, perhaps, as an administrator, you will advise me of the mechanism for reporting abuse and seeking corrective action. I have never had to do so before, but your accusation cannot be allowed to stand. Tim riley talk 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn. But in return, I would appreciate you withdrawing the charge that my analysis of the article amounted to nothing more than "JDL". I found that comment pretty offensive given the hours I had just spent reviewing other author biographies, reanalyzing this article and outlining some of my concerns about it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Len_Deighton/Archive_1&oldid=1140180963"