Talk:Spoilt Rotten

Lack of critical refs

Critcal refs lacking for this book at the moment, though I would ask that editors be patient as the book was very recently published. Jprw (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More refs in recently, which has enabled the reception section to start filling out. Also this from The Wall Street Journal but it requires a subscription. Jprw (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring synopsis

Chapter One in the synopsis is too long, and needs to be trimmed down—and then a summary of the introduction (which in the book is substantial) can be written. Jprw (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jprw (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I would question the notability of this book as a subject for wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability (books) states notability criteria are

• The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
• The book has won a major literary award.
• The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
• The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
• The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

As far as I can see this book is none of these things. Span (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re: criterion one above: please see the Reception section;
• Re: criterion five above: Denis Dutton, editor of Arts & Letters Daily, called Dalrymple a modern day George Orwell [1]; Peggy Noonan wrote that "Theodore Dalrymple is the best doctor-writer since William Carlos Williams"[2].

Please also retract your COI accusation. Thank you. Jprw (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, this is not an accusation, they are tags. You will see above that the reception of a book is not listed under the notability criteria. Perhaps the fact that you are taking tags personally suggests there maybe a conflict of interest. Span (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The COI implied that I had some kind of personal connection with the author, which is completely untrue, and I wanted to set the record straight. Please don't twist this to suggest that somehow this indicates that I do have a conflict of interest. Regarding notability, if you look at the five criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. 2. The book has won a major literary award. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

You will see that 1 and 5 are satisfied in full. Also, reviews of the book are gathering pace in the United States. I'm wondering if all these illogical and unfounded assertions on your part are somehow connected with the fact that he is critical of Sylvia Plath in the book? (I made a link to her page and her poem Daddy based on Dalrymple's analysis in this book). See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Jprw (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You ask if I take offence at Dalrymple's approach to Sylvia Plath. I assure you, I have never read any of his work. This is not personal, and I don't live in the States. I am interested in the article's notability, as I mentioned. If the work meets the notability criteria, then great. If it's won major awards, contributed to religious movements, is used as a text book at universities or has had books written about it - wonderful. I can, however, see no reference to these points in the article as it stands. I see press coverage. The burden of evidence is on the adding editor to include strong sourcing. This is not illogical or, as it seems, unfounded. Good sources can always be added. Span (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what the problem is. Please refer to the reception and background sections of the article and then see the words in bold below from criterion one for notability above.

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.

Jprw (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire article was clearly constucted by a literary agent and is one long advertisment. THere are LOTS of books that get reviews. BIG DEAL. This is not a notable work. This entire page is a carefully-worded billboard. It shows in that there's a French quotation from the end of the book that isn't even translated to English. Of what use is the quote then? Come on folks. Stop being sentimental about the article. We're getting scammed here by people who are PAID to put up Wiki articles about run-of-the-mill books. There are literally thousands of books released each year that express incendiary ideas, and they are bound to be reviewed. BUt there is NOTHING notable about THIS particular book. If you leave this article up, you're being HAD for commercial gain. How does it feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.197.38 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the main contributor to this article and I can confirm for the record that I have no commercial interest whatsoever attached to this book. And in any case, vandalism like this is inexcusable. Jprw (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits + no scholarly reviews?

I'm a little worried about how one-sided this article is, I don't think it's encyclopedic for this reason, it's not NPOV as the controversial nature of the book is underplayed. The book is clearly going against the mainstream in a number of the covered fields, and taking strong positions on other issues of controversy, without significant supporting evidence, in what is clearly not a scholarly text - this is dangerously close to rendering it pseudoscience, but the current discussion simply summarises the contents (at GREAT length) and cites mainly positive newspaper reviews.

I'd expected such a controversial work to have received critical commentary. However, I've had great difficulty locating scholarly reviews or responses to this book (which also makes me wonder about its notability, though it does seem to meet criterion 1). It's been used by newspapers, but I've a feeling conservative journalists are citing it because it confirms their presuppositions. Surely someone must have written about this book, or Dalrymple's broader hobby-horse that addiction doesn't exist? From what I can tell, the mainstream scholarly literature on addiction, poverty, narcissism, parenting styles and so on have ignored Dalrymple entirely. I think this is a repetition of the general problem with pseudoscience, i.e. it is simply ignored, rather than rebutted, in scholarly sources. This one's slipping through the net because it's getting sympathetic coverage from ideological co-thinkers in notable non-scholarly sources. I've restricted myself to noting the discrepancies with other fields, but I wonder if some more adequate response might be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.232.145 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Stray sentences should be consolidated into paragraphs.

   And the rather dense paragraph in the Critical reception section should be broken up.

   In the lead, reviews contain material not found in the article, see WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #10[4] supposedly supports the statement: "He then examines a newspaper article urging reform of the British prison system This article is about comments by a Catholic prelate, nowhere does this cite support the statement. Now ref#8 This issue is un-addressed, I fail to see how this article is relevant to the analysis of the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   ref #44 Adair, Tom (28 August 2010). "Book Review: Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality". The Scotsman. Retrieved 18 September 2010.[dead link] is a dead link Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   Otherwise spotchecks OK

   Assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No real evidence that this book is particularly influential apart from a few reviews - Not sure until I see evidence of some notability, awards, etc. -

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:StevePinker.jpg does not seem to have a correct license. Otherwise images OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

   I should remove ref#8 as I fail to see what purpose it serves. The dead link needs addressing, broadness of coverage needs addressing. It is possible that this book is so insignificant that it fails the notability guidelines. I shall make a final determination on Boxing Day. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, I think that this is as far as we can go. I shall list this as a GA. I Shall leave the question of notability for others to determine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the review. I will try to get round to addressing the points you raise in the next couple of days. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have tried to rectify the main failings you cite above, with what degree of success I'm not sure. My main worry is point 2 above – what do you think is the best way of dealing with this, perhaps removing it altogether, or referencing it in another way? Jprw (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now simply deleted the reference from 2 above, and fixed and amended the dead link. I think that the main problem now is point 3. The book has been fairly widely reviewed, but has not won any awards or achieved any exceptional kind of notability. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:StevePinker.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:StevePinker.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What's missing: Dalrymple as artist

I have been teaching Dalrymple for some time in a university here in San Francisco. Like my late friend, Denis Dutton, I write on aesthetics in general. I was trying to figure out what seemed missing from all the Dalrymple articles and I suddenly realized, the writers, pro and con, only discuss his politics. He's not George Will. Dalrymple is an artist, one of the finest contemporary prose stylists in English. That was what Denis meant when he called him a contemporary George Orwell. I think that someday we will recognize David Sedaris, Malcolm Gladwell and (at some distance behind them, but with them) Theodore Dalrymple as being the best three turn-of-the-millenium essayists. Profhum (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spoilt Rotten. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/thomas-sowell/5499-christmas-books-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)