Talk:Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan

Untitled discussion
The original article here is a bit down on Morris's means. True it is odd, maybe even a bit un-historical, but calling it a NOVEL is a bit much. TuckerResearch 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be taken word for word in parts from the NYT review. -- Stbalbach 15:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Worst "biography" ever
This book was the worst "biography" of all time. It's not even a biography really. Morris pulled a complete scam job on everyone with his fictional characters and stories. He just phoned it in. Weak. Oddibe (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the talkheader tag above, especially these words: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." And watch the WP:POV, please. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Morris goes so far as to include misleading endnotes about such imaginary characters to thoroughly confuse his reading audience."
This quote seems a little bit partial to me. Maybe it should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D6C2:DD00:CC19:6044:A90C:155 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would be a question of verifiability, not neutrality. Does it definitely contain false endnotes masquerading as citations about the actual characters? (I would imagine the answer is easily verifiable as yes, since it would require only checking the book itself.) Then that can be left in. Is there a verifiable source--either text within the book itself or from an outside source--that states that Morris's intent was to "thoroughly confuse" the reader? If yes, then it can be cited and left in. If not, it's WP:OR. The sentence "Morris eventually decided to scrap writing a straight biography and turn his piece into a faux historical memoir about the President told from the viewpoint of a semi-fictional peer from the same town as Ronald Reagan: Edmund Morris himself." could also do with a citation, though obviously the facts it relates aren't in dispute. Binabik80 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Dutch in Breaking Bad
The comment, "The book was briefly shown in AMC's popular drama, Breaking Bad." was for lacking citations. I just watched Breaking Bad episode 12, Season 5, and sure enough, there's the book clearly displayed in the episode. Don't know how to "cite" this information (there's no information about it on the Wikipedia entry of the episode in question) but it is a fact that the book is clearly shown being looked at by one of the major characters in the series. Just a FYI. Hope it helped. Thanks114.158.149.192 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply to establish that the book appears in the episode, you would just cite the episode itself, using template:Cite episode. A bigger objection to including it would be that by the sounds of it, it isn't remotely notable. Does the episode discuss the book, or is the book significant to the events of the episode in a way that wouldn't work if it were replaced by any other book? Binabik80 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009171739/http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/050607/depupd.html to http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/050607/depupd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)