Talk:Stephen Clarke (writer)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I am not quite sure about 1959 so please let's wait before we categorize Clarke as "1959 birth". <KF> 22:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that when I bought my copy of "a year in the merde" at Orly in 2004 it was titled "a year in the merde" and not god save la france MMMMadmannimann (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unobjective Publicity

This entire article is pure publicity. The style of the language is pompous and sections such as the importance of Clarke's books to literature goes beyond anything on the pages of Nobel Prize winners. Value judgments, while in some cases sourced, are presented as facts. This is not encyclopedia style. While the article may be written by fans and not professional publicists (as it seems), it should still be completely redone from an objective point of view.

Furthermore, I now see the footnotes lead directly to his publishers, to unattributed sources, etc. The whole thing is a mess. He is compared to Mark Twain, and the footnote leads to a page of Mark Twain quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.139.197 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am not responsible for anything that is written or published about nobel prize laureates. I suggest we just stick this article, shall we?

Please point out what exactly seems to be vague. If talking about writers there is always space for different opinions and the mere fact that a comparison isn't to your liking doesn't prove it wrong.

Secondly, what I learned when I studied literature the mere fact that a novel can be discussed is already proof in itself that this very book qualifies for being considered literature for "trash" doesn't allow anybody to read anything into it. The mere fact that we can discuss his novel does the writer already credit. That is what my profs told me and I haven't come across the slightest indication yet that anybody has even tried to refute this attitude. If you have, please do me the favour to enlighten me for I shall not die stupid.

Thirdly, there are currently in general only three kinds of available online sources when it comes to writers. There are the publishing houses, the shops who just want to sell the books in question and usually only quote the press releases of the aforementioned publishinng houses and are therefore of lesser value, and there are of course laymen whose websites come and go faster as you can quote them.

Nothwithstanding that I welcome every improvement and for the reason mentioned I appreciate opinions on this matter even more if they are totally different from mine. So you are very welcome to enrich this article by rectifying everything you might have recognised as inappropriate. Nordhorner II The man from Nordhorn 18:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordhornerII (talk • contribs)