Talk:Getting It: The Psychology of est/Archive 1

Copyedits and book publish info
Actually it is quite common in articles about books on Wikipedia to include the publish info in the lead, and what editions of the book were printed. And actually "est" in all lowercase, is the more common occurrence of the term, not all uppercase. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is being used to show that there was a second edition printed, please do not remove it as a reference. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that second edition the only subsequent one? In any case, this is information that does not appear anywhere in the body.  My understanding is that the lead should only summarize what is in the body.  A section on the book's publication history (sales, subsequent editions) would indeed be useful, and would then justify a mention in the lead.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is just not enough info on sales/publication history to have its own subsection, and I see no problem having one brief mention of a second edition in the lead, this is common on book articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: moved this info out of the article lead. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Age
It seems to me that the problem here is that Chamberlin says nothing about F's age when Getting It came out, or even about Getting It at all. It involves some maths (as Chamberlin is writing in 1998 and says F is 55) to figure out roughly how old she must have been in 1976. That smacks of original research to me.

Meanwhile, my library catalogue (and presumably the Library of Congress note inside the book's front cover, too) says she was born in 1942. If we're going to cite anything for her age, I say cite that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you provide information to satisfy WP:V if someone else wants to check, to cite that? Cirt (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's in the Library of Congress details on the book's inside front cover; that's no doubt where the library cataloguer got the information. One would have thought the Library of Congress is a reliable source.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is the LoC info:


 * LC Control Number:	 76020617
 * Brief Description:	Fenwick, Sheridan, 1942-
 * Getting it : the psychology of est / Sheridan Fenwick.
 * 1st ed.
 * Philadelphia : Lippincott, c1976.
 * 191 p. ; 22 cm.
 * ISBN:	0397011709
 * LC Call Number:	RC489.E7 F46
 * Dewey Number:	158


 * --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: added this info to the article with cite and it looks fine this way.  Cirt (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Title
Why is this article not capitalized like normal books? I think est might be always lower-case, even in titles, but psychology definitely isn't. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, normally though est is lowercase, psychology should be capitalized, but in this case, this is the proper capitalization title of the book. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In what sense is this proper? Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As per the book's Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No toilet for 4 days???
"which include not talking to others or going to the bathroom for the duration of the course. " from the opening of the article.

Somehow I doubt the accuracy of that statement, I don't have a copy of the book so I cannot check, but I think some checking about what the quoted agreements actually were would be a good idea Jasonfward (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will check the book and get the page numbers on that for you for verification. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

✅ - modifed wording in intro slightly, per the source: Cirt (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources not yet used in the article
Will list sources above, and incorporate them into the article soon. Cirt (talk)
 * Fyi, you can list these "to be incorporated" sources in the article in the form of a "further reading" section. Just remove them from there as you add them as references. --Rividian (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you, that was a good suggestion. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not clear what this is
A big problem with this article is that it doesn't really saying what est is. It links to Erhard Seminars Training, which I take it is the main est article, but that doesn't say either. And yet this is on the main page. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is discussed a bit in the Background subsection. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Cirt, it would be good to have something in the lead to say what it is exactly, and how it differentiates itself from other self-help courses i.e. what's unique or special or particularly interesting about it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is already a brief bit in the lede. We don't want to add too much more because it is only supposed to be a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. But I do most certainly agree with you that one of the core articles on the subject matter, Erhard Seminars Training, is in dire need of expansion and improvement from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. I think bearing in mind the disruption from users as revealed in the case Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway, Wikipedians have historically had difficulty in attempting to improve the quality of that article's content. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, Cirt, I didn't realize there had been difficulty editing the other article. What happened was that I saw this article on the main page, read the blurb, didn't see what it was about, came here, still didn't see, went to the other one, still nothing. But I don't myself know enough about it (or, indeed, anything about it) to be able to add a one-sentence summary to the lead. Perhaps if you ever have time or inclination, you could think about doing that. (Along the lines of "Est became popular because of its unusual focus on ..." or whatever differentiated it.) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries. You make a good point and I will look over the article again and think about the wording. Prior versions of articles like Erhard Seminars Training and other related articles used to have some good info in them though, unfortunately the disruption due to accounts exposed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway had been going on for quite some time. There is however some great background info out there on the web in secondary sources, and if you are interested in learning more about the controversial history of this organization and its descendants I'd suggest (unfortunately) looking at some other great websites other than Wikipedia. This source (cited in the article) has some good background info as well, as does The Skeptic's Dictionary, by Robert Todd Carroll. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Front page
Possibly the most lacklustre front page article ever? 91.106.131.219 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes and WP:LEAD
Regarding and  - Please take a moment to read over WP:LEAD. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Author info
Regarding - not sure what is being asked for here, please clarify here on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)