Talk:When Wish Replaces Thought

Relevant
Could somebody please tell me what relevance (anonymous?) praise in a dustcover-flap-blurb has? HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * Hello Guettarda, nice to meet you.
 * You have a mummy and a daddy. Not just one parent but two. In just the same way, when big people write in big books, they often talk about two things at once. Very often they talk about three, four or more things.
 * I think you can do this too! :)
 * If you were to tell me about dinner at your house, how many things could you talk about?
 * You eat in the kitchen. You don't like meat, but mummy and daddy do. You like to drink orange juice. And you always wash your hands before dinner.
 * Very good, look how many things you can tell me about, and we started with just one idea: dinner at your house.
 * Do you think you can use what we've learned to add some information to this article?
 * We can have an excursion to the library. Doesn't that sound like fun. :)
 * Don't worry about the pretty tags. You enjoy playing with them. I'll put them away later.
 * Bye bye for now. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great example of the problem with the tone and style of this article. I suggest you read Writing better articles.  Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)