Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guettarda (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 6 June 2009 (→Off topic: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	Books NA‑class
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Relevant

Could somebody please tell me what relevance (anonymous?) praise in a dustcover-flap-blurb has? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise what relevance the unsourced WP:PEACOCKery about Goldberg, or the (equally unsourced) mention of Fads and Fallacies has. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that most of the (unsourced) discussion is about Goldberg himself, not about this book, I'm adding an 'Off-topic' tag. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are a bunch of laughs. But I'm thankful for small mercies. At least you're not deleting the article this time; also inline tags carry their own specificity, and are less intrusive than emotional outbursts shouting from the top of the page.

To answer your questions directly:

1. The relevance of a blurb is it provides comment on the book. I think a more precise question would be, "what authority does an anonymous comment carry?" That, also, has answers, but I'll wait for the question to be asked.
2. Many words can be used as peakcock words, one needs to understand context to establish whether such words are actually being used as peacocks, however. The current case is not a peacock (though I couldn't be bothered pushing the point). A parallel would be, "what is considered particularly distinctive of Jane Austen's novels is their maturity in contrast with the 'horrid novels' typical of her day." Or, "General relativity is outstanding for its radical 'reframing' of the theoretical standpoint of thinking through questions in physics." Context is king.
3. I really can't see how reference to the author of a book is in any sense an a priori deviation from topic, quite the reverse. Typically, author and purpose for writing are considered to be essential elements in any serious discussion of literature.

The current stub is woefully lacking in many basics of dealing with its topic. It is so information poor it is almost trivial to improve it. You won't catch me defending a stub. It's much more time efficient to expand one. Were you to actually attempt this, you'd rapidly find answers to most of your concerns. Please consider reading sources and writing up text. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are full of it:

1. Vague, unattributed and self-serving blurbs are worthless both in terms of reliability and information content.
2. Unsourced peacockery is always worthless.
3. It is irrelevant in that it contains no useful information about the book -- just more eulogising.

Given that your comments have no more worth, substantiation or relevance than the article's contents, I really see very little point in wasting further time on you. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems neither of us has any time or I could help you to understand the issues. Best luck elsewhere with things you have time for. Bye. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Off topic

The {{offtopic}} tag is appropriate since the article discusses Goldberg, not the book. An article about a book needs to discuss the book. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• NA-Class Book pages
• WikiProject Books articles