Talk:The Emperor's Children

Criticism

Normally when books are of the highest quality they rank very highly on Amazon reader reviews. But that did not happen here. It's not acceptable that this book's Wiki entry should be purged of all criticism. I have therefore reinstated the Amazon reviews: I have removed the summary of Amazon reviews. As for the Delete Key awards it should be left there because it is (a) criticism from an established author (Janice Harayada) and (b) it demonstrates via quotes the mediocrity of the book.

In summary: please do not purge this Wiki entry of criticism. The key complaint by many readers in the public sphere is that of feeling cheated by the critical community who showered praise on this book: that imbalance must be redressed.

FlakJacqueline (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite to a reliable source for your statement that the book received a "much more mixed reaction from the general reading public," that would be a different matter. But Amazon reader reviews are not reliable on their face to establish that (you're presuming that those who choose to write Amazon reviews represent the general reading public), and your analysis of those reviews as such would seem to be original research and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. I'm also not convinced that the "Delete Key awards" are worthy of mention here. Essentially what you're seeming to say is that Janice Harayda's criticism of the book should merit individual comment, on par with the New York Times, the only other individual critical source to be noted. Also notwithstanding that an established site such as Metacritic does not include her in its list of reviewers for this book.

So please show me a reliable source supporting your claim about "readers in the public sphere...feeling cheated by the critical community who showered praise on this book." Postdlf (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note these guidelines stating that Amazon reader reviews, which are self-published sources, are not appropriate to include in articles. Postdlf (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Postdlf is correct. All information, whether it's criticism or not, needs to provide a reliable source. Without it, the info is subject to removal per WP:V. I have removed the reinstated material pending better sourcing, but be aware that Amazon reader reviews should never be included because of the above stated guideline. María (habla conmigo) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As pointed out beforehand, the 'summary' of Amazon reviews has been removed. Here is the rejoinder to your remaining remarks:

1. On the validity of using Amazon reviews as a barometer of public satisfaction:

I'm afraid that even your interpretation of the Wiki guidelines which you yourself highlighted is flawed. Reception is plainly divided into two sections: one deals of the Reception from the critical community, and the other deals with Reception from the public.

(a) The part which deals with Reception from the critical community clearly explains that Amazon reviews and blogs are not to be weighed in the same canon as "critics, meaning professional or well-known reviewers". The part that deals that the public response specifies no such exclusions.

(b) Since my edit of the article contained precisely these two parts (and made a clear demarcation between them), the removal of the part delineating the public response (apparently for no other reason than it casts the book in an unfavourable light) cannot be justified.

2. On the matter of the NYT's merit versus that of author who can demonstrate her point using quotations:

Of all international newspapers, the New York Times is the one whose credibility (in the wake of the Judith Miller/ Iraqi WMD affair) has been most severely (and most publicly) damaged, even by its own admission.[1] Disputes concerning matters of fact are far more easily settled, however, than disputes concerning matters of taste. You are therefore asking us to believe that a publication whose views proved spectacularly wrong when it came to matters of fact (which have a high potential for falsifiability) would have at least the same credibilty when it comes to matters of taste (which have virtually no potential for falsifiability). Rather, it seems reasonable to expect that the NYT's proclivity for lax judgement is likely to be worsened in an area where it has even less obligation to prove its view - such as the merits of a work of fiction. Therefore pointing to the NYT as a reputable source on this book's stature is a poor choice.

3. Having established points 1 and 2, the following are just some samplings (which could be multiplied many times over) of how the public response differs enormously from the critical one. (Note that currently on Amazon the number of 1-star reviews outnumbers the number of 4- and 5-star reviews combined.)

For examples of how the public are able to demonstrate the demerits of the book (simply by quoting from it): Review 1 Review 2

For examples of reviewers who feel cheated by favourable critical reviews: Review 3 Review 4 Review 5

For an excellent summary of the book's demerits: Review 6

In summary: You have now been provided solid justification for why - even by Wiki's own rules - the public response to this book needs to be included. Yet to look at the current Wiki entry for this book, the uninitiated reader would think that the novel is a work of the highest merit. Plainly this is misleading. I have already accepted that the critical reception of this book was - however inexplicable - favourable. Adding a single line describing the rather more mixed public response was an attempt to at least meet a glowing summary halfway. The deliberate exclusion of this clause from the Wiki entry is an indication that even a meeting halfway would not be tolerated. Therefore I regret to have to say this: in the face of all the evidence now profferred from readers and elsewhere for the mediocrity of this book, for a Wikipedian to (i) remain studiously incurious about the evidence that this novel might be flawed; and (ii) pertinaciously purge all criticism from its Wiki entry is to draw suspicion.

I do not believe that this page merits an edit war, so I would urge you to take this opportunity to return balance to this article. I find it difficult to believe that the above would not at least give a reasonable person some pause. There I'll leave the matter.

FlakJacqueline (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FlakJacqueline, although I agree that that the average reader's opinion of this article merits mentioning in the article, it must come from a reliable source. If you, or anyone else, can find a source that satisfies WP:RS and better describes the public's response to the book, then it may be added. Again, Amazon reader reviews are not reliable, and neither are blogs from blogspot. Here is a description of what is needed: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." María (habla conmigo) 12:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, this is an example of where Wikipedia's Net bias needs to be updated for 2008. There are professional writers contributing reviews to Amazon now, and I'm seeing the reviews being cited more and more as "reliable sources". (And remember, reviews of any kind are simply opinion. The views of Roger Ebert are no more valid than the views of Joe Schmuck on Amazon.) The same go with blogs, which are increasingly being viewed as sources of note (depending on the blog). If the criteria demands that some sort of "oversight" exist in order to make a source reliable, being an experienced journalist and editor I can tell you that there are plenty of publications out there where oversight pretty much extends as far as making sure names are spelled correctly and commas are in the right place ... and no further. Personally, I feel reviews of any type should not be referenced in any article on a creative work, because once again we're just dealing with opinions. Better to just cite if a film has made a top-10 list or has been nominated for an award; that type of information goes a lot further than just generically stating that a film as been praised or not. 23skidoo (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Please don't say "currently".

This is an encyclopedia. Please don't state the current status of a movie adaptation, because the time that you're writing something, is not the time that the reader is reading it.

- OK, if you must write that way, go ahead.  --  but if you do, please please put a parenthetical note saying as of when you're writing (like "as of writing, February 1857 ,,,").

GcT (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we write that "Barack Obama is, as of April 17, 2015, the President of the U.S." just because that's when his article was last edited, or just say he's the "current President"? We write when things change, not when they haven't. And there's nothing informationally of value about when we happen to write something in an article beyond the already obvious fact of an article's last edit date (already given at the bottom of a page and in the history). If something is reported as occurring or ongoing it is "current" until it is reported otherwise, and the date of the cited source will be much more useful for a reader to use to determine whether the report might be stale and need updating. Here it's as recent as August 2014, which puts us still very much within a reasonable timeframe for a film's development. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Film Adaptation

The movie project as described on this entry is no longer happening according to IMDB. The latest version of the project is in turnaround, and has a different set of people attached to it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0951324/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The article should be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:8A0:AE92:2256:C0DF (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)