Talk:Crazy Therapies (book)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comment

See Wikipedia:Fair use. I would suggest to reduce the material copied from the flap. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted Wikipedia Administrator User:Jossi. I have obeyed your "suggestion" and altered the article accordingly. Yours, Smeelgova 02:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
You can spare the sarcasm, Smeelgova. You do not need to "obey" as I do not give orders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. You are the Wikipedia Administrator, and I am the lowly editor. You can do whatever you want, at will. Interestingly how I read over at Wikitruth about Jimbo Wales's style of utilizing the I wonder technique, perhaps this is true, and perhaps other administrators have learned to do the same. Sigh, I will try to reserve judgement on this until I've seen it with my own eyes, I guess. Smeelgova 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Though your threat to 3RR/block me after I reverted to your last edit, and not mine, was a pretty freakay abuse of power if I may say so. Oh well. Keep on "suggesting" and I will have no choice but to obey. Or, perhaps we could actually have a professional discourse? Who knows? Smeelgova 03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).


No, not whatever. In Wikipedia we assume good faith, and if you don't like the process or the project, and you prefer to side with Wikitruth, you are most welcome not to contribute. Note that I do not have any privileges as an editor. We are at the same level. Yes, I have some tools to combat vandalism, and I spend time in janitorial tasks (that we call the bucket and the mop) to keep the project well greased. But that is all. There is nothing I can do that you cannot do when editing articles, and if I ever abuse my privileges, you can always file a complaint at WP:ANI.
Also note that as an admin, I cannot excercise my blocking privileges in articles I am actively involved in. So you can relax and assume good faith, rather than assume other things. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

As for this article, on second thoughts, I am thinking to place it on WP:AFD for lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (books). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please remove this article from AFD. Clearly this is a notable work, with multiple positive editorial reviews. Try doing a search and read up on it. The AFD is frivolous and will not succeed. Yours, Smeelgova 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
  • While I agree this book is borderline, I'm unclear if it needs deleting. The Author Margaret Singer may be notable in the USA, from the Google searches I've done. I personally hadn't heard of her until I got here. I'm also clear that the creator of this artical is using a standard format and is clearly using it as a "template" (see user contributions log Special:Contributions/Smeelgova) However if you look at the articals that the creator has created, there are quite a number of books that Margaret Singer has created. The author easily meets the criteria of numerous publishings at a peer reviewed/university level. If you merge all the authors publications into one file it might work, but IMHO thats a bit wierd. Mark1800 03:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We may need to merge some useful text into the author's article. But that will depend on the outcome of the AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a place to list all books in print (or out of print). Only those books that are highly notable have an article. The book can be described in the author's article rather than having an article for itself. The AfD can help decide if to delete, merge or if it is notable enough to warrant an article on its own. My view is that this is hardly a highly notable book. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Please, if you could, do not split my comments. Thanks) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to improve this article

I hope this doesn't offend, but as it stands, this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Tables of contents, promotional blurbs from the book flaps, and block-quotes from reviews are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and could amount to copyvio . As a suggestion, I recommend looking at featured articles for better ways to structure your article, though in this case it might be wisest to start over from a complete blank. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am still unsure exactly what Jimbo Wales wants out of a book article, but perhaps we can work on it together. I'm curious, why are reviews and table of contents unacceptable? I have actually seen these in other book articles on Wikipedia. Surely we don't have to start over from scratch, it would be a simple matter of deleting the sections in question and replacing them with more appropriate ones. Thanks for the help so far. Yours, Smeelgova 05:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Better yet, is there a specific "book template" or something to follow, that is preferred, when beginning to set up a page/article on a book? For example, is there a "non-fiction book template? Thanks for the help/advice. Smeelgova 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Thank you User:Mark1800, for the kind advice. I will look into it. Yours, Smeelgova 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
First, I am not Jimbo Wales, so if you want to know what he wants out of a book article, you'll have to ask him. Anyway, if there is a template or style guide for a book article that I knew about, I would have mentioned it to you, but since I don't know of any, all I can suggest is looking at articles other Wikipedians have decided are good and well-written. The reason why reviews and a table of contents as you have used them are problems though, is as I said, on the one hand, they are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and on the other, they are copyrighted material that belongs to someone else. Even if it fits inside the boundaries of fair use, and I'm not saying it does or does not, I can't think of a single other good article, or featured article that relies so much on material that was created outside of Wikipedia(well, aside from the rare article that comes from an older public-domain source, which isn't an issue here). Instead of having the table of contents, you would be better off describing the contents in your own, original language. Instead of so many quotations from reviews, you'd be better off summarizing the reviews, and having the quotations shorter, and in-line with the text. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the contents page? What is your purpose to adding it? IMHO the Review and the box on the side give you all you need. Other than that, this works. It's compact, gives all the info and is readable. Mark1800 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, after reading elsewhere it appears other editors like the table of contents. Why I'll never know! Mark1800 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
@FrozenPurpleCube, I think the table of conents is fair use and informative. I see no problem with it. Andries 11:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me any other pages that use it? It might be informative (hard to imagine a table of contents that wasn't), but it just doesn't seem to me to be the right way to present things. A textual description is much to be preferred. FrozenPurpleCube 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)