Talk:Etty Hillesum and the Flow of Presence

I've concerns about this article as a book published this year seems unlikely to be particularly notable. See WP:Notability. Also listing the book's contents seems somewhat more like an Amazon listing than an encyclopedia. I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on the notability - but in the mean time could the editors at least try to remove some of the more obviously promotional language and content? Dakinijones (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the book? I do not fully share your opinion. As a scholar interested in the subject area of this study, I think this book is well written. This Wikipedia site makes a significant contribution and is far from being an "Amazon listing." It should be noted that: •	It is the first book in the world in its genre, i.e. it merges the vision of two prominent thinkers, Voegelin and Hillesum, into one book. •	The book could be and perhaps is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. •	The book’s subjects Etty Hillesum and Eric Voegelin are historically significant that their written works may be well considered notable. •	The book is assigned an ISBN number, is published by University of Missouri Press, is listed in national libraries, found through various Google Searches and sold all over the world (The United States, Canada, Sweden, Japan and so on). I do agree with you that the Content box is not needed. AC 4 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.172.210 (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it might help if I share the WP book notability guidelines here:

Although I'm sure the book is worthy, I'm not sure that it meets the criteria for notablity. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't at this point in time meet any one of the five points above... if it does, the article needs reliably sourced quotations or references to proove that it does. Dakinijones (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering refering this article to WP:Afd. Perhaps the editors would like to merge the material with an already existent page? I have no idea what would be appropriate. But this page was created by the author's own institute (where he is also the web master) about what is apparently a non-notable (though worthy) book. As a separate page, it's really not suitable for an encyclopedia. Dakinijones (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Etty.jpg
The image Image:Etty.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New to this entire process, hope I'm pro forma: Granted, there may be an element of self-promotion (and certain ESL issues) in this article, but the raw information about the confluence of important contemporary thinkers is valuable. Theologically, at least, Hillesum is key to any discussion of theodicy and what has become its most frequently adduced historical problem (forget about earthquakes in Lisbon), the Holocaust. Hillesum's own terms seem to imply, at least, a reference or an appeal to transcendence. Contemporary thought is uneasy with such an appeal, but has difficulty ignoring it when it comes from such a quarter and such a circumstance. The resulting tension is likely to be productive. Hillesum is sui generis, and thought about her is in its nascent stages. Perhaps a little clemency, a little time? At this point, better to risk a weed than nip a could-be flower in the bud. AT THE VERY LEAST, oh powers that be, PLEASE do not consign this article utterly to oblivion, but preserve it somewhere in some form where its references and footnotes are still available.

Greenislender (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Etty Hillesum and the Flow of Presence. 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/20070915165352/http://www.klaas-smelik.be/ to http://www.klaas-smelik.be/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321165420/http://www.voegelinview.com/etty-hillesum-review.html to http://www.voegelinview.com/etty-hillesum-review.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820034240/http://press.umsystem.edu/spring2008/coetsier.htm to http://press.umsystem.edu/spring2008/coetsier.htm

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) 08:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Vanity article
This is transparently a vanity article written by the author himself. He includes the entire dedication in a citation. Even if the case were made that this book is somehow notable (and not through the author masquerading as a disinterested third party in a comment..), it still shouldn't be written in the style of a vanity article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C400:6A8:ED61:96E2:94DA:E671 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)