Talk:Think (book)

"The book has also been harshly reviewed for being a prime example of a book that actually encourages the opposite of thinking and for playing rather fast and loose with the facts."

Which book does this line refer to? Blink or Think?


 * Probably Think as the article is called Think. Skinnyweed 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is about Think as that book is utilizing the "from the gut" thinking that Blink proposes, yet does so while criticizing that very method of thinking. It presents a neo-conservative pattern of ideas, (the book is the first book released by the publishing imprint of Mary Matalin, a right-wing strategist) criticizes snap decision making, and then commits the same crime of not producing sufficient evidence to pursued the reader of his opinion.
 * I think the above statement should be put in the articale. Ervinn 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
It appears to be Wikipedia editor Ervinn's opinion. I do not believe that this belongs on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Good edits, Ervinn. KevinPuj 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree, to put the following quote in the 'Criticism' section: Think is an unintentionally dangerous and irresponsible book, tied to almost fascist political ideas...

First, I do not think a book can be dangerous and I do not think that the book is 'fascist'. It is not a political book.

Second, if the book is fascist, then that would be a fact, and should not be in the criticism section. Ervinn 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated in response to you on my talk page, this article needs reliable published sources. Blogs and personal websites are not appropriate. If there are no reliable sources independent of the book itself and the author, then the article warrants deletion. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What is reliable source is subjective, personal website with the author identity and contact information, and if there is no other sources, I think it could be accepted. It is better than nothing. Ervinn 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not subjective. Are any of these sources eminent persons in the field? Do these sources have any sort of editorial review or quality control at all? —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit
Somebody complained to the Wikimedia Foundation (OTRS) that some of the criticism / praise section contained commentary, depreciative or laudatory, that did not fit within Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Think! has been critically lauded in well-known, peer-reviewed journals and newspapers as a book that not only illustrates the importance of critical thinking to human progess and democracy, but also provides an incisve analysis of the caues of its decline in contemporary American society.''

Which peer-review journals? One should probably have a bibliography. Newspapers? Which ones? Who wrote the criticism column (a journalist? somebody competent in the domain?). Here we have weasel words... David.Monniaux 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thankgla.jpg
Image:Thankgla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a notable book, or just a notably stupid one?

This passage betrays such sloppy thinking, I find it hard to imagine how it could even get published, much less be considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article:

"The fact that the vast majority of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD are boys naturally raises the suspicion that the trend is part of a larger feminist agenda. ... From this perspective Ritalin, it would appear, is being used to treat nothing more than a 'boy' gene, not a true medical condition". ”

So, are we to infer then that breast cancer, say, since "the vast majority" of people diagnosed with it are women, leads to unnecessary treatments for a "woman gene, not a true medical condition."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

if some jerk is deleting the link to Blank: book, I will put it here
sheesh, Blank: The Power of Not Actually Thinking at All (A Mindless Parody)] is significant within the context of responses to Blink! So Gladwell got two authors willing to beat up on his BS, and I would say it's not nearly as honorable a situation as that of parodies of Tolkien. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)