Talk:Brad Thor

Self AuthoredPromotional Page?

Based on the authorship history (36 glowing, unreferenced, glowing additions by Cervantes in Algiers), this fellow has an inventive view of his talent and popularity. Citations please. Save the promotion for the jacket cover. Better yet, delete this amateurish attempt at 15 seconds of fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.127.72 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your ad hominem comments aside, we don't know if the subject of the article is the one making these arguably subjective edits. They could be done by a fan or a publicist. Let's focus on the problems in the content, not the personalities involved.173.49.135.190 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Response from Cervantes in Algiers: I don't know who you are 173.49.135.190 because you haven't created a wikipedia account. I also don't understand your beef with Brad Thor this Wikipedia page. I noticed that you showed up after Thor blogged about Robert Young Pelton and after you made change's to Thor's page, you went over to make enhancements to Pelton's page.

You made suggestions about the descriptions of Thor's books that had previously been on the Brad Thor page. They had bbeen taken from the jacket copy of the books themselves. You suggested that they were too promotional and so I removed them. Now you have come and reworked the entire page and leave snarky comments here. I think you must have some ax to grind with Thor. May I suggest that this is not teh best forum for that?

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Promotional hyperbole

I tagged this article because significant portions of this article seem to have originated in a publisher's press releases, e.g. "brimming with the kind of ripped-from-the-headlines authenticity" and "Brad Thor. . .will keep readers glued to the pages as he once again takes them across the globe on a heart-pounding chase where the stakes are higher than they have ever been before." This sort of breathy promotional prose is blatantly unencyclopedic. I've not read any of his books so I'm not in a position to edit this article accurately. Someone needs to edit out the heavy hype. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done an overall edit of the article, fixing the many footnoting problems. The footnotes still need work with each one titled.

There was an excess of subheading, so I combined sections into the biography portions.

Elements of this article still are without attribution. I've tagged accordingly.

The piece still suffers from a rather subjective slant and still needs a major overhaul. A RPL search of this author doesn't show him to have much press, notwithstanding the various claims in this Wiki article.

The lead paragraph erroneously inferred that all of his books are number-one NYT bestsellers. A check of the NYT lists shows several on the list but not all. As well, given two have not yet even been published, they could not be number-one sellers.

The JAWA report section likely raises significant Wikipedia issues, but I'll leave that to others to decide whether or not it should continue to be included. I edited to make the language more neutral.

In sum, this piece still needs more work by unbiased editors.173.49.135.190 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)