Talk:Death Be Not Proud (book)

message: why was this book banned?
Question: Why isn't this directed to the actual poem by John Donne, and this page not as death be not proud (book) ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.183.63 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: "(his [John Gunther Jr.'s] ideas about physics were advanced enough to gain commendation by Albert Einstein)"
I'm deleting this segment because it is very wrong. So far, I've read about half the book and there has only been one idea presented from John Gunther Jr. regarding physics. Also, Gunther Jr. never received commendation from Einstein, they were in very brief correspondence (regarding the previously mentioned idea) and Einstein merely stated that perhaps the two men could talk to eachother after Gunther's recovery. The author also implies that Gunther Jr.'s idea wasn't unique, but had also been preoposed by a few other scientists of the time. I instead will replace this line with (he discovered a new way to liquify ammonia). Like the previous statement, it supports the idea that Gunther Jr. was brilliant, however unlike the previous statement, it is 100% true. ;D Mojibaka 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material deleted 

message: Has anyone else picked up that most of the external links don't match the article? They all refer to John Donne's poem, not to the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.254 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Some moron edited the page adding "Like oh my gosh..." and other ridiculous text, so I reverted it to the only edit that didn't include it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.103.242 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: "...famous Gerson diet was believed to have reduced the size of the tumor..." this is misleading and has been deleted.  There is in fact no evidence that the Gerson diet has ever helped anyone.  And the term "belief" is a little fuzzy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.22 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted information 

message: I have also just finished the book and found many of the statements to be inaccurate, rather like someone was summarizing Cliff's notes on the book without having read it. Several breathless, wrongheaded comments have been deleted and two corrections of fact made: the hospital is not the "setting" of the book, since Johnny does stay there but is in other places, including his mother's home as well. (His mom is in fact overlooked in both the final book and any articles I've seen on it; her coda was a moving and important part of the final text and the situation of their family life deserves at least a paragraph describing when and why they separated.Dellaroux (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: This article reads like a "book report" written for a high school English class. It resembles the reflections of a teenager fulfilling an assignment. Not up to the standards of Wikipedia, as far as citations go. It's purely OR. Will have to be rewritten.71.36.99.75 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources cited 

message: I made drastic changes to the article today to bring the article up to encylopedic quality.  I removed several sections that were opinion-based and/or not needed and/or just plain odd.  I rewrote the "story" section, and renamed it "synopsis".  I created an Adaptations section for the movie mention.  I tried to find cite-able reviews of the book, to use to create a proper Reception section, but have not been able to find anything substantial.  Because of these changes I made, I removed the Refimprove and Tone headers, as I think they are no longer needed.  (Though I did not add citations, I removed, I believe, all uncited claims.) Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drastic changes