Talk:The Partner (Grisham novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Movie

The article states this is the first of his books not to be made into a movie, which is sorta true, but the last movie (Runaway Jury) was based off the novel of about 10 years ago. It seems to me all of his books are being made into movies, but in chronological order; perhaps they just haven't gotten around to doing the Partner yet. It may be in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actully, apart from what you have just said about the 'Movie', there will be one. Reported on September 30, 2008 by a Hollywood Movie Producer saying that she will be taking the challenge of turning New York's #1 stamped book into a movie. - Brandon Eskew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.203.254 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More information on plot

I'm going to add some more information on the plot.The Hegemarch (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I've deleted the plot section

This plot 'summary' plainly contravenes WP:NOR and WP:NOTPLOT. For example:

• As the plot continues, the reader gradually discovers what had gone before – this is an encyclopedia not a high school book review project.
• Patrick, the meticulous planner – this is analysis/ commentary.
• As the days turn into weeks – how poetic; no place here.
• Patrick seems to resign himself to the conclusion – 'seems to'? Interpretation.
• But the story's circumstantial evidence doesn't support a betrayal by Eva as the most likely outcome – 'This is what I think happened and I'm going to include it here even though the book doesn't say it'

This is no good. If @Thewolfchild:, who re-added the plot section, would like to write an acceptable version, go for it. In the meantime, we're not having this pile of unencyclopedic original research sitting in the article. The argument that the article "needs a plot" (a) has no basis in policy and (b) is not a justification for including unencyclopedic material. Amisom (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amisom: If you have so meticulously gone through the plot, line by line, as you claim, then why not WP:FIXIT as you went along? Deleting the entire plot is both unnecessary and a little silly, no? If you feel you know what would make for better prose, add it. If there is a sentence that you feel needs improvement, improve it. If there is a word you feel that doesn't belong, remove it. Or add some tags. But gutting the entire page is really a last resort, and should only be done as a temporary measure while you work on improvements. You left the page like this for seven twenty months. Are you here to help build this project? To do that, you need to add content. - wolf 14:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Because I don't think it's fixable. I think it needs a total comprehensive rewrite and that's something I don't hav etime and resource to do at hte moment. If you have time and resource to do that now, @Thewolfchild:, then you do it. You fix it. Your suggestion that deleting content which goes against our core content policies "is really a last resort and should only be done as a temporary measure" has no basis in policy. Your attempt to stir up trouble by claiming that I'm not here to help the project is transparent. Find someone else to bully. Amisom (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow... you're the one that is full-on rage-editing right now; going on deletion sprees, revert-warring, firing up needless RfCs, launching multiple personal attacks, disingenuously taking comments out of context, posting accusations of bad faith... and you're calling me a bully? WP:Focus on edits, not editors.

You made an edit. I reverted. Per BRD, I tried to discuss it with you and when you didn't get the exact reply you wanted, you broke off the discussion (after only 2 posts) and went straight to RfCs. Since you claim to be fully aware of WP:DR, why didn't you try any of the other steps suggested?

And here on this article, you claim you didn't have the "time or resources" to improve the plot. What "resources" do you need exactly? And it's been seven twenty months since you removed the plot. How much time do you need? You apparently had time to carefully go through the plot, line by line... why not take an extra few seconds and fix or remove the points you noted as problematic? Much of what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. But there is no need for hostility and insults. So if you'll just calm down, I'm sure this can be resolved. - wolf 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just not going to argue with you about this. If you make any edits to the current state of the article [1] they must comply with Wikipedia's content policies. If you add material (even if it is material you ahve taken from a previous version of hte page) that is unencyclopedic, or violates WP:PLOT or WP:NOR, you will be held accountable. Amisom (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Er, no... the page can't stay like that. I have re-added the plot, but removed the sections you complained about, (but also couldn't be bothered to remove yourself). So, go ahead and "hold me accountable" (I take it that wasn't just an empty threat, but a sincere threat?). - wolf 15:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Er, yes the page can stay like that, and yes it will, unless and until someone makes a policy-compliant edit that changes it. You are yet to make such an edit. Amisom (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: See WP:BRD: you amended a version of this page which had been stable for seven months (as you have repeatedly pointed out); your change was contested; you need to gain a consensus before redoing it. Can I suggest that you explore the possibilty of dispute resolution if you can't reach a consensus on the talkpage. Amisom (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

lol... just because no one (who could) fix it) noticed you blanked the page for seven twenty months, and you consider that "stable"...? - wolf 15:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Amisom (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that to build something, you need to add to it, right? (Add, as in, content, not RfC and AfD tags). What use is this page to anyone sitting blank for seven make that sixteen twenty, months? - wolf 16:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Our content policies are not optional. sorry if this disappoints you. Amisom (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

First, who said anything about policies being "optional"? Second, why is it when a particular question doesn't suit you, you either disingenuously re-frame it, lash out with a personal attack (or both), or just refuse to answer altogether? Let's try something simple; you've now, somewhat desperately, added a ridiculous blurb under the plot section. How come you made zero effort to improve the plot section after you blanked it almost twenty momths ago? - wolf 16:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to cross-examine me. Amisom (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I answered your questions; you didn't want the answer after all. Classic WP:IDHT. Amisom (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on plot section

Should a lengthy plot section written in colloquial language be added to the article [2] or should the article be left in a bare-bones version with a short plot summary [3] until a more encyclopedic, policy-compliant plot summary can be added? Amisom (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Short plot summary - the long version, which has been deleted for over seven months due to its policy non-compliance, is no good. The book begins with a band of American and Brazilian thugs ... He knows that simply stealing the money and running won't work ... Patrick waits and waits, his heart broken, agonizing over potential explanations ... his only consolation being to live out his days in a country he loves, near where they met, hoping someday to once again see Eva - it's all chatty and unencyclopedic. Unless and until someone has something more encyclopedic than the current bare-bones version [4] it should stay as the current bare-bones verssion. Amisom (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Short plot summary - WP:MOSFICT points to the essay WP:Plot summaries, which says: Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided that the passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. (Emphasis mine.) Other than the plot summmary we have all of two sentences, and zero references providing real-world context. A longer plot summary, written in an encyclopedic tone and without our personal analysis, would ultimately be nice, but this isn't it, and the shortness of the plot summary not the article's main shortcoming. Huon (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No Plot

FWIW, I don't think the book should have a "plot" section with any substantive details, for several reasons.

1) Spoils the book. 2) You can't write like John Grisham. If you try, you will fail and the Article will seem "substandard" (compared to the book). 3) You can't write like a professional reviewer. If you try, and you succeed, the Article will read like a gossip column and not an encyclopedia. If you fail, the Article will seem substandard. There are always professional book reviewer's synopsis's to quote anyways. Why reinvent the wheel? 4) That's not why people want to read an encyclopedic article about a book anyways.

There's plenty of other, more important and more interesting information, such as "How many copies did it sell?" "How many times was it republished?" "Did it come out in hardcover, if so many copies did it sell, how many printings in hard cover, did it may the NY Times "Best Seller List", quotes from professional movie reviewers, was it made into a TV show or movie, was there a sequel and/or do any of the characters in this book appear in any other books, does the book incorporate any real life history into it (such as hurricanes, notable news stories, etc...).

In general terms I agree the blank Article is unacceptable, the only question is if the deleted material made it better, or worse.

"The ending is ambiguous" is weak, not encyclopedic, and it screams to the reader "DON'T READ THIS BOOK". I would not include this in the Article unless the intent is to tell everyone what a crappy book it was.

Came here while browsing the "disciplinary board" or whatever that place is called and decided to have a look-see. I suggest you take some time to look at other Wikipedia Articles and model this one on those. Again why reinvent the wheel? Particularly another John Grisham book, if an Article exists for it. Find the best one or two that you can, and do what they did. Hope this helps.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Redirected The Partner to Partner.(closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The Partner → The Partner (Grisham novel) – There are several topics with this title. 67.149.246.163 (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support, no clear primary topic. The Partner should redirect to Partner, which already lists the entries in question. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There are only three artiles titled The Partner but the Grisham novel does not seem sufficiently primary. PC78 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as WP:NOPRIMARY. I also endorse redirecting the primary to the Partner disambiguation page per WP:DABCOMBINE. -- Netoholic @ 10:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support and Redirect. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support the TV series (633) gets more than half the views of the Grisham novel (1,279) and given that there is also the Jenaro Prieto novel (16)[[5]] and a link to the DAB page would be preferable it seems that this is outside WP:2DABPRIMARY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive 1