# Talk:Jonathan Lethem

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:  GreenJoe 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the section called "First novels" only has 1 citation for the entire paragraph. I'm putting this on hold until it is fixed. GreenJoe 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On another look, the lead needs to be longer too. GreenJoe 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Chronic City will be published in September 2009, but the release date on Amazon is October 2009; maybe it's not such a big difference, yet it might be misleading for prospective readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.118.97 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

You are correct--the official publication date has changed, and I confirmed it at the publisher's website [1]. I have changed the date in the article. Thanks for the heads up!--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just posted a photo of Mr. Lethem under CC BY that I thought might be useful for this article: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fcb/3910765136/ Thanks! Fred Benenson (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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. VWBot (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This bot edit has been reverted as there was no copyvio in this particular edit by User:Accotink2 (the addition of an external link), and the bot's reversion undid productive edits by User:Beyond My Ken.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any truth to this  or not[[2]] and if there is, should it go on his page ? the flavour of the confirmed stuff on the page is that he holds the opposite view --— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lethem was the co-editor of Philip K. Dick's Exegesis that was just released.  In case you don't know what the Exegesis is, it is PKD's set of personal writings about his philosophical beliefs and visions, especially the vision that he would later write about in VALIS and other books.
It's pretty major point for Lethem's career and I would guess it should be included somewhere, however I don't know exactly where that should be.  I don't want to step on any toes and try it myself. 98.223.65.209 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll include it, but it's hardly a "major point for Lethem's career". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to know why I don't directly contribute to articles look at the statement above. One can't write anything without getting a snarky remark.  Lethem edited the papers of a major writer of the 20th century.  Seems pretty major to me.  You can keep the snark to yourself. 98.223.65.209 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you took it as snark, it was meant to be matter-of-fact. Lethem himself is a significant writer of the 21st century, which is much more important than editing another writer's papers -- especially since only scholars are Dickheads (like myself) are going to read the Exegesis.  It's most definitely a niche publication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposal makes no sense.  As seen in the proposer's comment on Talk:Dissident Gardens, it is based on the erroneous idea that the article is still frozen in its pre-publication write up, which had been an incompetent cut-and-paste from this article. Choor monster (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The (malformed) merger proposal has been up for a week, without a single reason offered for why it should be made, by the proposer or anyone else.  I've taken the liberty of reverting the proposal, not just "closing". Choor monster (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK-
Your reverts do not belong on WP whatsoever.  WP relies on reliable sources, not non-commercial sources.  The New York Times and Time are 100% commercial, they are cited 1000s of times.  It's perfectly acceptable to cite any of their articles hidden behind paywalls even.  If you were to engage on a one-editor campaign to purge all references to these two sites, or even just the ones hidden behind a paywall, you'd very very quickly be banned as a vandal.  Frankly, there's no difference to your purging relevant mentions of Amazon from this page.
For what it's worth, BookFinder is 100% commercial.  It's a wholly owned subsidiary of AbeBooks.  AbeBooks puts money maintaining BookFinder not because they are engaged in a bibliophile's dream website (back in the day when it had been founded as MXBF, for example) but because it's good for their bottom line, links to competitors notwithstanding.  And besides, four of the six listings were to Amazon!
Finally, any such link is temporary, as I mentioned in my edit summary.  Once the book is published, it counts as its own reference.  The only pre-publication citations that remain will be published press releases, especially if they have some quotation from the author.
We do leave out any cruft from Amazon.  Customer comments and Amazon rankings and the like.
Anyway, I am going to revert your edit.  Feel free to add that second commercial citation if you wish, although the point of such escapes me.  Much much better would be a citation from a commercial source like the New York Times passing on commercial information fed to them from Lethem's publisher, and I'd have no objection to such a source replacing the Amazon citation.  If Lethem updates his webpage, we'll cite that in addition to a commercial reference like Amazon or BookFinder.  In addition, not in place of, simply because of WP:SELFPUBLISH.  Having the publisher let its go-betweens know something is going to happen is always more reliable than an author saying he has things in the pipeline.  (Cf. Jasper Fforde.) Choor monster (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
BMK-
Quit your replacing one Amazon reference with a different Amazon reference.  I had completely forgotten: Amazon bought AbeBooks (owner of BookFinder) back in 2008.
Note that ISBN 9780385539814 specifically links to Amazon.com, near the top, "For verifying citations in Wikipedia articles, and finding more info."  Follow the link to WorldCat I provided, and you will find that this "non-commercial" site has precisely one reference to the book's existence: Amazon.com.  Choor monster (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use links to commercial websites as references. BMK (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A request is not an argument.  Such requests are going to be permanently ignored.
As I explained very carefully above and which you have absolutely refused to respond to, I am following WP policy, you are not.  As for WorldCat, as I mentioned in my Edit Summary where I introduced it, it is, at the moment, simply verifying that Amazon lists the book.  If WorldCat is good enough for you, then so is the sole source they are relying on.  No library yet has the book. Choor monster (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You explained nothing.  According to WP:RS, reliable sources are: [P]ublished sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy  Are you claiming that Amazon.com has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"?  In this case, undoubtedly someone issues a press release of further publications, and Amazon added it to their catalog.  I have no doubt they relied on the publisher's word, and did not fact check a damn thing.  This is why we don't use commercial sites as references, because their only purpose is to sell something, and they are not dedicated to accuracy or fact-checking.Now, please stop restoring your reference which uses a non-reliable source., or I will bring this to the attention of admins. BMK (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS also states that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  For a mainstream author from a mainstream publisher, the word from the publisher is all the fact-checking Amazon needs.  And you know what?  That's the total amount of fact-checking the mainstream press usually does when it announces books are forthcoming.  They don't actually visit the publisher's offices, or even bother with a phone call, except for the most high-profile of forthcoming books.  (Why not?  Well, you see, they're all businesses, and have a bottom line to worry about, and in the case of forthcoming books, that's pretty much all the fact-checking needed.)  It also happens to be more than the fact-checking done by WorldCat, which is, at the moment, relying on Amazon.com and nothing else.
The only thing we are claiming, and relying on Amazon here to verify, is that such-and-such book is in the pipeline.  And as I explained, and which you point-blank ignore, we most definitely do rely on commercial sites as references.  This article has links to the New York Times and TIME, plus dozens of other commercial sites.  Both those sites, and most of the other commercial sources in the article, are selling page-views, paywall access, and paper subscriptions.  They are not providing information as a service to humanity.  You leave all these in, so frankly, nobody can believe you when you state your objection is that Amazon is commercial.
As I further explained, with a quotation above, WP already has given its official blessing to Amazon.com on the ISBN lookup page.  You have not addressed this.  Editors are explicitly encouraged, at the very top of the generated links, to verify the existence of a book using Amazon.com.  We have an asin parameter in Template:Citation.
You see, the reason WP can rely on certain commercial sources is because certain commercial sources have made good information the basis of their money-making activities.  In the case of Amazon, it has achieved such a high level of accuracy that WP and WorldCat both explicitly endorse it as a source of information regarding book existence.
And frankly, you have been nothing but a hypocrite.  You tried BookFinder, unaware that it has owned by Amazon for about six years now.  You now have repeatedly endorsed the WorldCat link I provided, ignoring the fact that I pointed out that, at the moment, the only purpose WorldCat is serving us is to pass on the Amazon link.  Something to do with the fact that the book is not yet in any libraries anywhere in the world, something to do with the book has not yet been published.
Personally, I prefer having the Amazon link in-place and not in a footnote, simply because by being ugly, we will remember to remove it when we any locate better source (including publication itself). Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
TL;DNR. BMK (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
[3] BMK (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issue is completely beside the point. There are generally no reliable sources (neither Amazon, publisher, author, etc.) for non-routine future events, per WP:CRYSTAL. Books get cancelled or delayed. It happens. This happened to Lethem specifically with the "Omega the Unknown" business. When the book comes out, it will be a lovely addition to the article. Until then, we shouldn't announce it because we are assuming it is certain to happen. The past is documented by sources, the future is not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You have misread WP:CRYSTAL.  See point #5, underlying added by me:
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.
This says point-blank that mention of the forthcoming book within the Lethem article is perfectly acceptable.  "Speculation and rumor" rules out party talk that makes it into print (as has been common with Pynchon novels).  What is documented is that the publisher has reached a certain stage in the publishing pipeline.  I see no reason for anyone to overinterpret such an announcement as anything beyond our usual way of speaking about the future.  In particular, if the book gets cancelled, we update our information.
As a similar example, taken from WP:CRYSTAL, Lists of tropical cyclone names has the names of certain storms, that may or may occur, good through 2019.  The only documentation for this is ultimately the WMO, maintainer of the lists.  Meanwhile, WP:CRYSTAL forbids separate articles until the named storms actually happen. Choor monster (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to add it as an announcement in the body of the text, write it up that way. But it can't be placed in his "Works" as if it's already happened. Books sometimes get cancelled or delayed! Future events can't be written up as if they already happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason that it's unfair to list not-yet-published book as if it's guaranteed to happen, is that reader interested in this author looking at his works are mislead into thinking the work is out there and available. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to mislead or misinform or confuse. When the book is real, we can report that it is real. An announcement is not the work itself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The 2015 date makes it clear that it's not yet published.  I see no indication on the page that this is meant as a guarantee, and I can't imagine a reader seeing 2015 and thinking the book is out there and available.  Future events can be written up in ordinary English, because we can insist that readers do understand ordinary English.  Note that the announcement has not been listed as a Work, the work in question has been listed as a Work.   Feel free to change "(2015)" to "(2015, estimated publication)" if you wish, or include a next level down subheading "Forthcoming".  Personally I think the two are synonyms in this context, and you are being remarkably silly. Choor monster (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the section listing a few short stories with full publication details.  If someone wants to go that route, compare with Alice Munro and Isaac Asimov, which get separate articles for their bibliographies as the lists go on and on.  See also Sherlock Holmes.
Since Thomas Pynchon has a handful of short stories, putting them in his article makes sense.  Putting a pick-six out of several dozen in the biography article does not make sense. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
There is little post-2019 information, although a quick Google search indicated that Lethem has continued writing
The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
IMDB is used as a source, which English Wikipedia considers unreliable.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)