Talk:Pseudonymous Bosch

Book Accuracy

Can someone change "2 standalone titles" to "3 standalone titles"? He published book 2 in unbelivable oliver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Direct copies from text

There are several sentences in this article that are direct copies from "The name of this book is secret"Jlavezzo (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Pseudonymous Bosch is definetly one of my favorite authors of childrens books. I have read his first three books and I am halfway through the fouth one. I was so interested in him, I decided to search him up on here. A list came up of the characters, so I skimmed through. I am meeting some new characters currently, and the description of one totally spoiled what is going to happen next! Anyway, I love these books and would definetly reccomed these for anyone who likes long mysteries. This book is so full of suspense, adventure, mystery, and the devontional relationship between Cass and Max-Ernest is so sweet. Pseudonymous had me on my seat, just sitting there one minute, then the next minute I will jump up screaming"No Way!" "How could he?!?!" "Traidor!" "Finally!" "!@#$%&*!!!" I rate these books 5 of 5 stars.They are amazing, brilliant, breathtaking, and beautiful. Please please PLEASE READ THESE! I CANNOT EXPRESS HOW AMAZING THEY ARE!!--SquishyFishy (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

STILL Anonymous?!

Boy, is PB successful! i read his first book it is AMAZING!i cant to read the next one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.244.19 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) he rocks and tirtha is 19 years old I have two theories about who he (Bosch) is: one, Derek Landy. Two, Douglas Adams discovered the secret to alchemy and is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.92.115 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I love PB and his books! However, some info on this article is not rue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.48.204 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about Pseudonymous Bosch being Rapheal Simon? It doesn't quite add up, does it? Who even started the rumour? Perhaps Bosch himself started it to throw readers off the scent? I've just run a google search on Raphael Simon, but there isn't much about him except that he did something for a TV show. Anyway, if it's accurate info, should it be added to this wikipedia page? 109.151.100.202 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I added some info on how he is claimed to be Simon and also Bosch's denial re: this fact. Hopefully more information will come to light over time! Nikthestoned 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability easily established

I just did a search on Yahoo for "Pseudonymous Bosch" and got over 94,000 results. There are many author, publisher, and book seller websites there; but nonaffiliated sites as well. Fartherred (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Combination of the words pseudonym and anonymous?

I'm dubious about the claim the name is a "combination of the words pseudonym and anonymous". I've added a citation-needed, but I suspect it's original research or even an outright etymological misunderstanding by a contributor. "Pseudonymous" is a perfectly good word in its own right.

Clive Jones (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and removed that information. I had a good look on-line and could find no mention. I also had trouble finding the (obvious) connection with Hieronymus Bosch in a reliable source also but left this info in as it seems pretty likely to be correct. (I did not remove the {{citation needed}}). Nikthestoned 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Released

"He has released 12 books". No one releases books: authors write them, publishers publish them. 31.48.245.30 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I've made the change. It's not strictly necessary, but for the future, you're encouraged to be bold and make the change directly if you notice a typo like this. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Is cite note 4 original research?

I noticed that cite note 4 pulls together various primary sources to create a conclusion. While it makes sense and properly cites sources, is this considered original research? Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@AnonymousStackOverflow: As I'm the one that added that note, I'll explain my reasoning. One could argue that this falls under no original research due to the synthesis of published material clause, but that section specifies that it stems from when sources A and B lead to conclusion C "without [either source] connecting them". In this instance, source A directly refers to source B ("his first professional essay") and thus the conclusion should be valid by Wikipedia standards. If I am misinterpreting this, please correct me. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)