Talk:Steal This Book
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
"The book Steal This Book was written by Abbie Hoffman in 1970, and is considered a classic of American pop culture of the 1960s."
Technically 1970 was the last year of the decade known as the Sixties. Same as the 21st century didn't begin until after 31st December 2000. RossyG 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Where can I buy a copy? --Bcrowell 3 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
It says "...considered a classic of American pop culture of the 1960s." If you had read the book you would know that it is in the spirit 0f 60's culture. --220.127.116.11 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
More like, where can you steal a copy? Anyway, the external links section has a link to an electronic version of the book. If you want it in print form, print it out on your printer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 10:50, December 17, 2005 (UTC)
No, print it out on some else's printer...
Thought for possible inclusion: the computer book series "Steal this Computer Book" - which talks about computer security and the internet. If we can include Ben & Jerry's "Eat this Book" then "Steal This Computer Book" should be there as well. - CMS--22.214.171.124 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"It should be noted as well that the book makes use of the word Amerika."
Why is this relevent? This book says a lot of things, why should this useless fact be "noted"? I'm removing this, it adds nothing to the article except clutter. Harley peters 03:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a novel
I removed a tag on this page which put this book in the WikiProject Novels, since this book is not a novel. Doctormatt 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed a sentence at the very bottom of the page, "u look like a poop face". -Fyrefoxe
System of a Down
Sons of Anarchy
In Season 2, episode 10 of Sons of Anarchy, Jacks is shown reading the manifesto left to him by his father. While one paragraph does contain the text the narrator is reading, the next paragraph is actually from Steal This Book's section on hitch hiking (the last paragraph on page 27). I wonder if other episodes that showed the text did the same thing. Anyway, this is original research right now and can't be included in the article, but it is pretty cool. If someone can find a source mentioning it, that would be awesome. - 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Book Cover for "Steal this Book"
Nice article but the book cover shown is not the one I remember from 1972. The original book cover had a hilarious picture of Abbie Hoffman on it shoving a copy of the book under his jacket. He had this shifty-eyed grin on his face that made the cover shot just remarkable. And of course it fit perfectly with the title. Doug Potter, May 1, 2010
Anon 188.8.131.52 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added a quote to the article, but the source cited says nothing about the book "Steal This Book", most recently here. The anon user claims that the book "Free" is the same book, but this is not stated in the source, and Steal This Book does not identify "Free" as the same book. This needs to be reverted, or another source clearly identifying the quote as directly relevant to "Steal This Book" needs to be cited. Anon 184.108.40.206 has been given multiple warnings about this but so far has refused to provide an appropriate source. Cresix (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
First you claimed it had nothing to do with the article and I pointed out it was an extension of the previous paragraph. Then you claimed there was no mention of a book so I pointed out that there was. Then you claimed it was a different book so I pointed out that it wasn't. Then you claimed it was original and unsourced which is absolutely false. You are the one edit warring by removing sourced content you don't personally like and making up false reasons for doing so. Exactly what other book on free stuff do you think it refers to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're claiming that "Free" is the same book as "Steal This Book" doesn't make it true. THAT is the original research. I could say that "Alice in Wonderland" is the same as "Steal This Book", but that doesn't make it true. Your opinion is not a reliable source. The quotation will eventually be removed if you can't provide the appropriate source, and you will be blocked if you continue to add the information without a proper source relating the quotation to the article. You are skating on very thin ice here. Such editing is excusable for a new editor up to a point. But policies and your violation of them have been repeatedly pointed out to you. It's your choice to stop this disruptive editing or get a block. Cresix (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So you are going to keep threatening me because you don't like the quote. Cute. The quote stated:
|“||Abbie went home and published a book (for sale) called Free, which catalogued every free service in the city of New York which supported really needy people. He plastered his own picture over it thereby announcing himself as a "leader" of the free counter-culture.||”|
Exactly what other book ever published by Hoffman outlined free services and had his face on the cover? I'll give you a hint: none. No other book. Check his bibliography.
- I never said I didn't like the quote; and consider this your final warning about making a personal attack. Nowhere, NOWHERE does the quote above (or the bibliography you link) identify "Free" as the same book as "Steal This Book". Nothing in Steal This Book or Abbie Hoffman identifies the books as the same. It doesn't matter what I think the book is or what you think the book is. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you had bothered to read any of the blue links that I have provided for you multiple times you would know that. This is the last time I'm saying this. Provide a reliable source identifying "Free" as the same book as "Steal This Book" (and your opinion is not a reliable source), or the quotation will be removed, and if you continue restoring it without proper sourcing, you will be blocked. It's as simple as that. And I'm not repeating this here again. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Free probably refers to Hoffman's Revolution for the Hell of It, which was published under the name "Free". It included a copy of Hoffman's booklet on how to live for free in New York and other cities, which he later expanded into Steal This Book. So I think the assumptions made by the IP editor are 100% wrong, but these are my speculations (which are worth nothing in the world of Wikipedia). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- To see the cover of Revolution for the Hell of It, written by "Free", see here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what Malik Shabazz said, and either way it's irrelevant. There is no evidence that the book "Free" and "Steal This Book" are the same. Drop it and move on before you really do get blocked. Cresix (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture was a later autobiography. Revolution for the Hell of It was a first person account of his activities...which would be an autobiography.
- I'm not personally threatening to block. I'm simply trying to help you avoid a block because you have moved into dangerously close territory. But I'll not comment any more on your behavior; I'll simply let the sanctions process play itself out if that is what happens. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You have threatened me with blocking about six times. You can backpedal and pretend you are merely being polite and informative, but that is a load. I would say you are PERSONALLY threatening me with blocking.
- I can't stop you from misinterpreting anything. End of discussion. Cresix (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So you demand discussions to begin and also have the power to end them at will? I didn't recognize you without your crown, my liege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The article states that "Hoffman would not respond to accusations that he had plagiarized the book". Assuming that 'the book' is 'Steal This Book', this appears to say that Hoffman plagiarized 'Steal This Book' rather than Hoffman plagiarized other books for 'Steal This Book'. Would it be better to say "Hoffman would not respond to accusations that the book was a plagiarism"? Or Similar? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)