Talk:The 33 Strategies of War/Archives/2014

Article length

The section I deleted contains large amount of unsourced opinion. The rest seemed be spelling out the entire framework of the book. That doesn't match standard format - which is a synopsis of the work (see On War) or if going into great detail, listing the chapter names (see The Art of War) The version of The 33 Strategies of War‎ goes well beyond this, padding that article to 62,626 bytes, significantly more than the point that Wikipedia guidelines recommend summarization or dividing the article. (For contrast On War is 13,199 bytes, Art of War is 36,199) I'm also concerned that the amount of material outright copied from the book The 33 Strategies of War is a copyright violation. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

the detailed content of a book is not encyclopedic material, certainly not for a book which is merely notable, not famous. Using this amount is probably in excessive of the WP fair use guidelines. They are much more liberal and imprecise for text than they are for illustrations, but this is by any reasonable standard altogether to extensive. , I have removed it again. Please justify and get consensus before re-adding. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The removal the strategies/rules reduced this page to a stub. The examples listed above (The Art of War, Thirty-Six Stratagems‎) do have a synopsis of the book, a list of the chapters, and a list of the strategies in the chapters. 174.22.10.230 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Those two books are not merely notable, but world-famous classics for many centuries, of an importance way beyond this book. The more famous, the more detailed the content that is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There should at least be a list of the chapters and sub-list of the strategies in each chapter. This book deserves more than a basic summary. Also, there should be a debate before the content is deleted. 174.22.10.230 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concensus has been to remove the large amount of material. It's far beyond the guidelines on article length and my be a copright violation. Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything more might or might not be copyvio, but it would certainly be promotional . DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between an overly long article and a stub. If the description paragraph is too short then the reader will not have a summary of the book. 174.22.13.133 (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the section that took you through all the chapters in detail. It had no independent reliable sources. The Future Buzz.com is a PR website. It not an independent reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

The review in the Independent was misrepresented as positive. The review in the Sunday Times does not seem to exist.[1] [2] Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I copied that from the advert-biography of Robert Greene. Old newspaper articles are not always kept. I managed to find a new URL for the Joseph Losos review cited in an old version of the article.[3] --Toddy1 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

what the book is about, format and other issues

there's no mention of what the book is about, the tagline at the top reads like advertising while the reception looks like a weird, critic's panning spree

I think it'd be appropriate to change the top section to be less awkward and say it was written as a general guide to dealing with everyday issues through the rubric/lens of strategic warfare, using historical anecdotes to supplement the expression of it's concepts

I also think that some mentions of the fact that the book has 5 basic divisions would be appropriate, pertaining to how to deal with one's self, and how to organize, as well concepts of how to go about how to engage in aggression or deal with it, and unconventionality in conflict, at least this gives a proper idea of what the book is about, it doesn't give information on how to do these things

this would more accurately describe the book and it's intentions without spoiling anything or "selling" anything, while the reception section would make more sense as well

and this "booklist said" and "the independent said" needs to be removed/changed to the author of the article, it's totally inappropriate to claim that an entire group shares the same opinion as a single writer, organizations don't have opinions, people do

"(author name) of the xyz said" would work however — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.176.11 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

oh and the quoting practices need to be better, it's not "modern-day machiavelli" it's "Robert Greene has done very well out of it, setting himself up as a modern-day Machiavelli." quoting out of context is not the sign of a proper article and this is because the article in The Independent is criticizing him for his cynicism not his competence

the following two bits are from the same article as well yet are presented at the beginning and end respectively

The Independent said Greene has set himself up as "a modern-day Machiavelli" but that "it is never clear whether he really believes what he writes or whether it is just his shtick, an instrument of his will to shift £20 hardbacks." and concludes "There is something less than adult about it all."[5] The book has "far too many duff sentences",[5] for example: "Your goal is to blend philosophy and war, wisdom and battle, into an unbeatable blend."[5][16]

what does this quote have to do with reception?

In the book Greene reveals that "Afghanistan was rich in natural gas and other minerals and had ports on the Indian Ocean".[14]

and where does it mention who said this?

"The political tales in the book are said to be "mostly foolish or just plain wrong".[15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.176.11 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the numbers after quotations, you will see that they are footnote numbers. The footnotes tell you the source of each.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

It's becoming an edit war, but all you need to do is cite the book and then the other editor has no right to remove it. --Vaergoth 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's a book about war, you could only expect an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.7.42 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)