Talk:Psycho-Cybernetics

message: Matt_Furey has an online business http://www.psycho-cybernetics.com associated with Psycho-Cybernetics. Crocoite 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. Unfortunately the article about him has been censored by his fans. Tyciol (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Matt Furey]]

message: This actually exists? *sigh*  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.80.145.108 (talk) 06:07, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:Do you mean the book exists? Tyciol (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ummmm?

message: :Image:Psycho-Cybernetics.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Psycho-Cybernetics.gif

message: 1. a quote has been added, objectively establishing the significance of the book
2. another link has been added to an objective book review
Personal note: 
I hope only to save the article from deletion by these crude changes. This is my first serious edit attempt on Wikipedia. I apologize if I made any mistakes. I would appreciate any constructive criticism.
I hope to return and add to the article some time. I am still just reading the book, but I believe it is truly significant and much could be said about it. Eaglei67 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons not to delete the article 

message: I believe the statement about the book being ranked 34th is incorrect. The referenced web site does not contain a ranking; it simply lists the books in alphabetical order by author's last name. This same statement also appears on the Maltz article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.195.114 (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book is not "ranked" 

message: The second "book review" reference has advertising at the end of the review, and a link to "Powell's" bookstore. Wikipedia doesn't promote business links which serve any type of commercial purpose as far as I know. Thus, if correct, I move to delete this link Ronsword (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 2nd reference 

message: I have restored the sentence removed by the IP editor on 28th May. The description of it as an updated version edited by Dan Kennedy is correct, as can be verified by reading the preface of that edtion (and indeed by comparing the text with the original). DaveApter (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all unusual for posthumous updated editions to be published. The book in question contains large amounts of Maltz's original text (possibly all of it, but I cannot claim to have carried out an exhaustive review), supplemented by comments and examples provided by Kennedy. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The New Psycho-Cybernetics" 

message: Three posthumous editions of this book have been published since Maxwell Maltz's death in 1975. If insistence is being made on including any one of these then it must follow that in fairness all three should be included, and in such a way as to make clear that Maxwell Maltz was not involved in their production.
I have therefore edited the article accordingly (revision 21:32, 15 July 2016‎) to include a listing of all three posthumous editions. If one wishes to include any additional details about one of these in particular, then create a separate Wikipedia page devoted to that edition and link the value in the "Title" cell of the reference section "Posthumous Editions" table to it. BushRodgers (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that any and all posthumous revisions should be given equal treatment. I had no knowledge of the other two. I do think that a summary of their emphasis and contrasts with the original might be appropriate within this article. They would only merit an article on them specifically if they have a claim to significance in their own right. DaveApter (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly Distinguishing Posthumous Editions From The Original