Talk:Decipher (novel)

message: wow, someone has copied the blurb!--58.178.227.52 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Removed: apart from a smell of WP:SOAP, unless some pre-existing commentator has made this analysis of the book's contents and real-world events, it's WP:SYNTH, a flavour of original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My contact with this article was removing what I presumed was fancruft or spam from that section, and was surprised when the author announced on my talk page that he had written it.  If the author had used those cited references as sources for his book, then it might not be WP:SYNTH, but due to the protracted period over which the author has been adding support for the predictions, it seems that he is searching for events proving his foresight (à la Jules Verne). Piano non troppo (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions section

message: Section removed. I can't be arsed to check them all, but here's an example why:
:A wide-screen special-effects Technicolor blast, perfect for a Hollywood blockbuster. The Times
In actual context:
:STEL PAVLOU's debut novel is, at heart, a work of pseudo-science fiction. But the less credulous would do well to suspend their disbelief because beneath the New Age flummery lies a pretty decent high octane thriller ... Wade through these lengthy preliminaries, and suddenly the novel takes off. With the team's arrival in Antarctica the story turns into a wide-screen special-effects Technicolor blast, perfect for a Hollywood blockbuster. From time to time it shows that this is Pavlou's first book. The plot is overloaded and parts have to be ditched unresolved and the tone wobbles between the dryly esoteric and the demotic. There is even an attempt at a rather coy love interest. But Pavlou has not spared the horses and the last third of the book makes up in thrills for any shortcomings. Yet with so much of his arsenal spent on his first book, you wonder where Pavlou will turn his talents next. 
And another, even more disingenuous:
:A fascinating blend of science, mythology, language and much more. The Independent (UK)
The reality:
:There are some great elements to the story, but the whole thing is too big, too overblown and far too long to sustain its momentum. This could have been an excellent science-fiction novel of ideas. The plot offers a fascinating blend of science, mythology, language and much more. But in casting it as a thriller, Pavlou has succumbed to the twin temptations of melodramatic writing, and of pulling too many rabbits out of his hat. The finale in Atlantis staggers beneath one wonder after another (including murderous golems that resemble the dead loved ones of our heroes), making it impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief.
:- The Independent review
With such cherry-picking going on, I very much doubt the other reviews are neutrally reported. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well spotted. This is an excellent example of why anything like this needs to be sourced to the original. I had a problem on an article where 'Editorial reviews' from Amazon (not readers comments), were being used but there was no source for them and some were clearly excerpts from something longer. There was a big dispute about whether they should be included. dougweller (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: So? Selectively promotional quotes are fine for the context of selling a book. That doesn't make them appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia with a core policy of neutrality. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed Amazon's 'editorial reviews', we actually need the originals - these are like the blurbs you find on the back (or front) of the book. Extracts can be very misleading. If you can't give the source, readers can't check to see if the review is represented accurately, see WP:Verify. dougweller (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reaction

message: Gordonofcartoon is correct. The Wikipedia article is not a study of how publishers choose to encapsulate reviews. The article is about the book and how it was reviewed -- unsurprisingly, commercial advocates chose to cherry-pick the original reviews in a way that present the book in a favorable light -- that the reviewers themselves did not intend. Gordonofcartoon has, properly, gone back to the original sources.
Editors should be aware that the author himself, Stel Pavlou -- or someone acting in his name -- is altering the articles, defending himself on talk pages, has accused me of vandalism for making a (more conservative) edit on one of "his" pages , and may be using several accounts to disguise his involvement. I believe Gordonofcartoon has suggested a list of accounts here: ? It includes the username "Trooperdave". User Cyclades vandalized this talk page, removing unfavorable commentary, added an insulting personal comment, and was blocked for a week by C.Fred. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  The quotes from the book's cover have to go.  That is just marketing propaganda.  If there is a notable, relevant criticism that can be quoted in full, that might be more welcome. Themfromspace (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: I found some sources for the actual reviews and like previous discussions have said, the reviews weren't really as positive as Amazon listed them. Most of the reviews that I could find were along the lines of "this isn't all that good, but it's entertaining". Hopefully it's more neutral now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added reception section