Talk:The Dice Man

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

There should probably be some references about the banning of the book, and also the success of it in the USA as opposed to the UK and Scandinavia.. Any news reports or anything? Otherwise it's original research.

Matter attended to today. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85F5:DED0:5B7:A091 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable "External links"?

Check out who published the extract from the book! — heretical? are they a problem? --dan (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "edited version"

"in the United States it acquired the even more confident subheader 'Few novels can change your life. This one will', in spite of its being a highly edited version of the original."—anyone have info on this? what was edited? how can you tell which version you have? i googled, didn't see much. --dan (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with subheader content

The subheader "This book will change your life" is NOT "even more confident" than "Few novels can change your life. This one will." The latter states that life-changing abilities in novels are rare, so it's a bolder claim that "this one will." The former (ie. the revised version) does not claim that it's a rare thing. If it's possibly common then it's LESS confident to claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.238.31 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed today. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85F5:DED0:5B7:A091 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comedic?

What's comedic about it? Is this someone's original research? Citation needed. 92.28.254.154 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been addressed. In future perhaps provide link or pointer to location.2601:246:C700:9B0:85F5:DED0:5B7:A091 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and Style

The following is not a sentence, whereas the other items in the list are:

Mentioned in the Manic Street Preachers' song "Patrick Bateman" ("Travis, Rhinehart rolled into one cute son")--24.17.241.233 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References in popular culture

One episode of The Streets of San Francisco features a hitman (played by Bill Bixby?) who uses dice to choose his method for each job, to make it less likely that the police will connect them. No way to know if the writer of this episode had read The Dice Man, but the timing is about right! —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hm, looking up Bixby's two appearances in Streets (on IMDb), neither plot summary fits. —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism find leads to source checking

Today, after spot-checking some sources, it became clear that several sentences were without sources, and that the entire plot summary, near to verbatim, were taken from the user-generated fan site, h2g2.com. In order to give editors time to replace this unacceptable source, the content was allowed to remain, but was converted to quotation—a blockquote in the case of the entire section plagiarised—and the source was noted, and a ^{[better source needed]} tag was placed. As well, any other content that was not found in any of the appearing sources—and all were checked—is now identified with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. That is, as unsightly as it might seem, the article is now verifiable, and only the clear problems that persist are tagged. Please, remove the tags, as each of the remaining problems are addressed. Note, the h2g2.com poor source accounts for about a third of the citations (7 of 23), including the whole "Plot summary" section, and so that editing and those citation replacments should be done as soon as possible. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85F5:DED0:5B7:A091 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on h2g2.com content transferred here

Since seeing the above, I discovered, first, that the author of the h2g2.com content—which accounted for a lot of the content that was noted to be lacking references—was, in fact, an h2g2.com contributor that had switched to become an editor of Wikipedia. When he did so, he admits to having moved his original content, created for h2g2.com, over to the Wikipedia articles he edited, see User:MartinHarper. Hence, the contention above that the article is substantially WP:OR is substantiated; the fact that M Harper created the content elsewhere, first, as a user/contributor, prior to introducing it here, does not negate that (or make it reliably sourced content). So, there is still a need to find comparable content, from reliable, published sources, to replace this user-generated original content. 50.252.127.89 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been removed back then as original research/unreliable source but it's been removed now. The book being from 1971 and the author having died in 2020 there really ought to be some decent sources by now.... Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]