Talk:Unlikely Brothers

Thank you. Gallery looks nice. I will add another photo. --Jespah (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery, trailer[edit]

I removed them both, as briefly described in the edit summaries. Together (and separately) they made the page look like something straight out of Amazon.com - preview pages, promotional videos - and as such appearing primarily to encourage or facilitate sales. The purpose of the article is not to generate interest in the subject, but to describe what it is.

In addition, either gallery images came from the book or they didn't. If they didn't then they aren't really pertinent to the book (and therefore article) but instead as illumination of the personal relationship between Prendergast and Michael. If they came from the book then in addition to my original concern ("click here to see inside!"), I think potential copyright issues are not sufficiently addressed on the image upload pages. That is not to say that, if those were addressed, then the photos should be reintroduced but rather, it's another reason to remove them immediately. I would bet that any number of authors would grant proper permissions for their content to be used to "flesh out" their books' Wikipedia articles but again promotion is not the point. JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added photos. Daniel added gallery layout. He did not to object to video either. Permissions sent to wikimedia. --Jespah (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about image uploads but the licensing on those photos gives no indication that any permissions are forthcoming. You might check to make sure you did everything kosher style! JohnInDC (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with John regarding the video, it is overly promotional and shouldn't be on the page. I don't have problem with the gallery if the image copyright issue is cleared up. --Daniel 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

may i put the gallery back up when permissions are received? --Jespah (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's over the top and too much like an ad. JohnInDC (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article on a book has several photographs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemurs_of_Madagascar_%28book%29 --Jespah (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Those pictures are not from within the book but are original work of various Wikipedia editors. 2) They are there to illustrate concepts from the book, not to provide a look inside it. 3) Don't be drawn in by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 4) The apparent copyright issues are not resolved. I'm going to remove the gallery again and ask, Jespah, that you don't reintroduce it until we've reached consensus here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Wikipedia's general policy on image galleries. This one doesn't fit within it. In particular see, "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article...." Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries. JohnInDC (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they can't be used, would you mind deleting the three photos? Thanks. --Jespah (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your recent deletions[edit]

(The first two entries were ransferred here from User Talk:JohnInDC. JohnInDC (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

being promotional material does not make the reviews less authentic.

they have been on the page since May, and I would prefer that they be allowed.

--Jespah (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're provided (and probably solicited) by the publisher, consist of fragmentary quotes, and entirely lack context. They don't describe or summarize the book or its message but instead just talk about how great it is. Indeed they could have been written without having read the book at all. It is marketing material, promotional fluff. If I had noticed it sooner I'd have taken it out sooner. By now you should understand that Wikipedia articles exist to inform, not to promote. The material I removed is a good example of material that falls on the wrong side of the line.

I'm going to move this exchange to the article's Talk page, where it more properly belongs. JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And - to be clear on the point - being promotional may *easily* make them less authentic. The first few of these are not neutral third-party reviews but rather are, in all likelihood, quotations sought by the publisher from prominent people for the express purpose of selling more books. Indeed in those instances there probably is no actual underlying review from which the quotes were taken. (I could not find one, for example, from Eggers or Power.) As such they are simply contrivance, and the opposite of authentic. (And the two that do appear to have been from real reviews - Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly - are already separately linked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Sometimes, there is such an air of superiority about editors involved with Wikipedia, a false sense of all knowingness. Samantha Power and Dave Eggers, I assure you, read Unlikely Brothers. Do you really think that people as busy as, especially Samantha Powers, would take the time to write a blurb for a book and an author with whom she was unfamiliar. Ms. Powers is, by the way, Mr. Prendergast's best friend, and Mr. Eggers has been Mr. Prendergast's friend for years. Now, I know you are going to say, well, there you go, they are friends and therefore, anything they say is questionable. This is not a court of law. I appreciate the opinions of Samantha Power and Dave Eggers. I'm sure other people would appreciate seeing their pov here, too. --Jespah (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't gotten around to it yet - despite the prior pleas of several editors - please go review Wikipedia's pages on sources, original research and verifiability. Then you will appreciate that pull quotes provided by the publisher of a book, apparently but not actually from book reviews which, in fact, don't seem to exist at all, are not neutral, not reliable, and not verifiable (particularly purported reviews by personal friends of the author!); and your own faith in the trustworthiness of these particular individuals is beside the point. This is just marketing fluff. Real reviews are okay (to a point - Wikipedia is not a collection of links after all) but this isn't that. JohnInDC (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further - and at the risk of sounding a bit like a stuck record - you should go take a look at WP:Advocacy, particularly the section on "Defenses". That article and WP:Activist do a pretty good job of describing the issues that your edits over the past year or 18 months to the John Prendergast related articles have presented. Judging by your edits it is very hard to escape the conclusion that you care more about promoting or advocating the things you are interested in, than you do about improving Wikipedia. (And as you are well aware, I am not the only editor who has come to that viewpoint.) So long as that remains the case, you are going to butt heads with other editors and suffer frustration. I really wish you'd take the time and trouble to read and understand these various policies, try your hand at editing *outside* a subject area where you hold strong personal views, and learn how to become a Wikipedia editor rather than an activist with a Wikipedia account. JohnInDC (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]