Talk:The Manipulated Man

This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Men's Issues

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Louis, Debbie (August 1973). "The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar (Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 184 pp.; $5.95)". Worldview. 16 (8): 60–61. doi:10.1017/S0084255900022877.

Regarding the Synopsis

kindly read this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Esther_Vilar#Full_protection_for_one_week

the text was removed from the Esther Vilar article as it was deemed unsuitably lengthy (and irrelevant) for a biography page. You will note that it is not a copyvio, but a paraphrased summary of the book. I can vouch for the fact that it contains no original research, having read The Manipulated Man myself. Unless you feel that there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, I ask that you refrain from deleting it. Enezenb (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was removed from Esther Vilar because it was unsupported and non-neutral. I know, because I'm the one who removed it. Try inserting a synopsis that comes within a few light-years of sourced encyclopedic prose. (And as a side note, you didn't write that synopsis, so it's extremely improper to claim it as your own work.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to claim that I wrote the synopsis myself. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I am still a newbie on wiki, but my understanding is that the style of writing is justified. The text is a succinct synopsis to the book, formatted in an 'encyclopedic prose' suitable on wikipedia. Full-text pdf versions of the book can be easily found online. One will find that Vilar's writing style (as well as the ideas communicated) is also similarly aggressive and direct. At the same time, I don't believe that NPOV applies to book summaries. I don't see articles such as The God Delusion and God is not great being censored for having non-neutral text. However for now I will leave the article as it is, awaiting other opinions on the matter. Enezenb (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you'd have to do is, in an edit summary or on the talkpage, attribute the article (and user, if you like) who wrote the synopsis you inserted into this article. IIRC, Wikipedia content is under a CC license such that you can use and rework it (because otherwise where would we be) but that you have to attribute it.

Actually, the articles you linked are good examples of a more encyclopedic way of summarizing a polemic. Check it out - how often do those say "Dawkins argues" or "Hitchens says"? And how many times did the summary you inserted say "Vilar says" instead of just presenting a claim as fact? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. As you may know the original text was written on wikipedia by a user with only an ip address. How might I go about attributing it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enezenb (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right thing to do would be to name the article and the date in the revision history from which you got the content. Unless of course you plan to write a new synopsis in a more appropriate style, which would be better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more recent version is certainly an improvement on the old one, but it still needs a lot of reworking to present these as Vilar's arguments rather than as fact (there's also a problem with WP:SAY even in the parts that are now attributed). Would those users who have read the book consider writing an original synopsis? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the article, from a neutral point of view. Perene (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but the problem isn't the use of declarative instead of conditional words; it's that the content is presented as fact instead of argument. I may take a look at it and see what I can do, but since I haven't read the book, I continue to say that it would be better for you (Perene) or Enezenb, who have, to write an original synopsis that conforms to the appropriate guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

I believe the original publication date would be 1971 for the german original version, and not for the US (The Manipulated Man) translated book. Perhaps it was released in 1972 or 1973? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or January 1973 in the United States, as it is mentioned here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19720614&id=FoVPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aQUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5590,2542644 - I also believe Pinter & Martin are the publishers for the revised edition in 1998. Or some other edition, or the original one, but it is mentioned in this newspaper the name "Farrar Straus & Grioux" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easter eggs

Bacondrum - You seem to have reverted *all* my links, some of which do not appear to be easter eggs to me. Take gold digger for example; why did you remove that link? The text is literally the same as the wiki page name. - Sridc (talk)

I apologise if I deleted one that belongs there. Please feel free to reinstate it. Bacondrum (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]