Talk:The Power of Now

Did some copy-editing

I haven't really read the book (my mom recommended it to me, is all), but I think my copy edits have reduced ambiguity. OTOH, having not read it, I may have mis-represented some things, although I doubt this (mostly I fixed paras, not content within). I didn't remove redundant "Tolle"s or "The book"s, however, since I'm not aware whether a sentence is contingent on the one before it or on the book generally. That can be fixed by a reader. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Theme

I have read the book, and will be working on a clarification of the section on its Theme, which I hope to post shortly (after Christmas hopefully!).

For now, it seems to me that the final paragraph in that section is out of place here. The book is far more original than merely a restatement of the Buddhist principle of dukkha It is an original work on spirituality. Tolle, as the page says, is not part of and promotes no one religious point of view. Of course, many influences can be discerned in his writings, including Buddhism. Actually I find there are strong Christian influences in his works, not least in his concept of Surrender. The reference to Buddhist principles has had no citations added since it was inserted some months ago, and I have therefore deleted it. In its place a section on Influences on Tolle's thinking might be appropriate, but probably in the main article on Eckhart Tolle rather on this page which is devoted specifically to just one of his writings. Silence-is-infinite (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Publication date

In the lede it gives 1997 as the publication date and uses the book as a source. In my version of the book (Hodder and Stoughton, the English version) it says 1998. Can someone with the New World Library version check if it actually says 1997 or 1998? Should be on the first page of his preface. 122.111.224.134 (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the lead wordings to represent the correct issue about publication date. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Are comments left on Amazon book pages now considered suitable sources for WP? 78.151.172.252 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Feel free to remove them. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all the individual comments, and left only the percentage of reviewers who gave the book 5 stars. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entire entry because: the information is subject to change on a daily basis, it violates WP:OR since the source makes no claims or statements about what number or percentage of people gave the book a 4 or 5 star review and lastly because the citation and link lead to a place where the book is for sale.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Basic mathematics does not count as original research but your other objections are reasonable. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Greg.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is written by followers and sheeps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.9.189 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True or not?

• It has been estimated that by 2009 The Power of Now had sold 3 million copies in North America.

Either the above statement in the lead came true or not. In any case it should be updated to reflect the current situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it was estimated in 2009 that at that point it had sold 3 million copies. It was not a prediction. If you like, you can read the relevant part of the cited and then change the phrasing to make it clearer. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, my mistake, it was not a prediction. I'll look at the source and see what can be done to clarify the sentence. Thanks for you input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources

This article has 68 citations and 62 of them use the subject itself (The Power of Now, book) as a source. This is a flagrant violation of the policies WP:PRIMARY which states:

• Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears you may not have read the rest of the policy that you are citing If anything this text would belong on the article for the book

• "Primary sources" are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Gregcaletta (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what i wrote on the Eckhart Tolle talk page: "It is important that you understand Wikipedia policy on primary sources and secondary sources. To say that writings by Eckhart Tolle are unreliable sources for describing Tolle's opinion because they are primary sources is a misinterpretation of the policy, and to some extent a misinterpretation of the term "primary source". If one were trying to summarise "Othello" by William Shakespeare, it would not be necessary to go to secondary sources. The play itself is a reliable source for the contents of the play, just a book such as this is a reliable source for the opinions of its author. "Primary sources" refer to the forms of evidence that a historian pieces together to create a historical evidence. The terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are not relevant when discussing the opinions of the writer." Gregcaletta (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

However, I agree that content based on the book should be placed in direct quotes when possible. If you want to read the book and check whether the article accurately represents the content of the book, that would be a great help. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Primary sources are permitted on Wikipedia but only in limited supply and in limited circumstances as outlined in WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE. What I am objecting to is the clear dominance of primary sources upon which the article is based which violates Wikipedia policies as I have cited above in my original comment. Wikipedia is not a place where individual editors utilize the subject to promote itself via self quotes and self reference. I also object to the undue weight being given to the content of the book per WP:UNDUE For example take a look at this feature article on the book called Jack the Ripper.[1] It contains citations to the book, but only in the section on Content. Note also that the primary source citations comprise only about 25% of the citations in the article. Likewise the Content section comprises about 25% of the entire text of the article. In this article almost all the citations and text are about the content of the book or subject of this article which amounts to self promotion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the other non-content sections need to be expanded, but using the book as a source for the content of the book does not count as self-promotion; it's merely being accurate. For example, the featured article on Shakespeare's play Hamlet uses only the play as a source for summarising the content of the play. This is not "promotional", merely accurate. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hamlet includes significantly more third-party commentary than this article, but that is simply because more commentary exists for Hamlet than for The Power of Now, and the dominant source for the article is still the play itself. The term "primary source" is not even quite correct when referring to a book such as this, because primary source refers to sources close to a historical event.Gregcaletta (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, wow. Keithbob is right - this article is totally violating WP:PRIMARY. There is way, way too much focus on the intricate aspects of this book, and actually this ends up coming off as an advertisement for the book, as well as a fansite created by someone that's extremely devoted to Tolle and the book. There's a recommended structure for nonfiction books, particularly in the way of synopsis. I would seriously advocate trimming down this article - mostly the Underlying philosophy and Ways of transformation sections. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't read anything I wrote did you? Will you read it, or do you want me to summarise? Gregcaletta (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that primary sources are permitted in describing the content of the book. And yes, that is OK according to Wiki policies. What we need to address is the issue of Undue Weight that is being given to the book content which makes the article a fan site and self-promotional, as Annyong has stated. This can be accomplished by creating and expanding other sections, using reliable secondary sources, as well as reducing the number of sections, text and primary citations on the content of the book. So in essence, I agree with what Annyong has said above. And yes, I read all of your posts carefully.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. There is far too much importance given in this article to every single aspect of this book. Wikipedia isn't a book report or a place to summarize every chapter; the synopsis should be a fairly brief, er, synopsis of what's in the book. As long as the text in the article is true to the book and doesn't go down any sort of OR path in its explanation, using the book as its own source is relative fine. The problem is just that there's too much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK well I agree that the length can be reduced. For now, you can just remove any content that does not have a citation. I and I definitely agree that it would be great to find more sources commenting on the book or it's production. However, someone has obviously gone to a lot have hard work to summarise the book as best they can and provide citation. To simply remove the cited material would just be lazy. The problem of original research can be overcome by reading the book, and replacing the cited paraphrasing with direct quotes. And sorry Keith, but it seems that you didn't read what I wrote very carefully after all. I didn't say "that primary sources are permitted" although that is true. I actually said that it is not correct to use the term "primary source" to describe this book, because the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms used by historians to refer to the proximity of the source to a particular historical event, and are therefore irrelevant here. There may be a violation of WP:OR here but there is no violation of WP:PRIMARY, which you will understand if you read those policies carefully,and the Wikipedia article on primary source. Using direct quotes, rather than paraphrasing, is how one avoids violation of WP:OR. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A primary source is "source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied". Tolle's book about his own ideas couldn't possibly be any closer than it is. It's a primary source through and through. And not removing the text because someone went to the trouble of adding it is, well, not entirely right. Certainly one can be bold and remove text like that. So.. who wants to take a crack at paring down the article? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the uncited stuff. The section you just quoted doesn't appear in the cited source. Try this one: "in humanities, a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time". There is no "time period being studied" in this article. The Power of Now would be a primary source if we were using it to document a historical event witnessed by Tolle and described in the book, but it is not a "primary source" for it's own contents; it is the only source. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed most of the uncited material. If either of you would like to try shortening it, I suggest you read the book so you can get an idea of which parts are most important. It's only a short book. If you don't want to, eventually I will get around to shortening it further, but I don't think it is a high priority. It's a much higher priority for this article to do some research and find third party material to expand "Publication" and "Reception" sections, than to remove cited content. Either way, if you guys are really interested in improving this article, you will have to do some research. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed subsection and quote from the Reception Section

Removed Tolle quote from the Reception section per this Discussion [2]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a discussion over whether it belonged in a different article. HelloAnnyong agreed that it belongs here. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the discussion took place on a different article but the principles are the same ie. an editor choosing a quote by Tolle and presenting it as a response to info from secondary sources. I'll post a note on HelloAnnyong's page and see if he/she wants to clarify what they said about the quote being put in this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably better to request a neutral third opinion from WP:3O. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are clarifying what he actually said, fair enough. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's any place to put that text, it's here. But I don't like the idea of having it in a blockquote and in its entirety. Can we take part of it and put it into a sentence that fits in with the rest of the reception section? Something like, "In the 2004 edition of the book, Tolle wrote that 'the urgent need for a radical change in human consciousness' is necessary, and that the 'readiness in millions of people for the arising new consciousness' is how the book should be perceived. Something like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've cut it down as much as I can and taken it out of the block quote format. I don't think it's really possible to cut it out further with out misrepresenting what he actually said. Paraphrasing should be avoided because it adds our own interpretation to what he actually said. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to compromise and allow the quote in the reception section. And thank you for cutting it down Gregcalletta, but it is still much too long and gratuitous in my opinion. I support Annyong's suggestion of saying:

• "In the 2004 edition of the book, Tolle wrote that 'the urgent need for a radical change in human consciousness' is necessary, and that the 'readiness in millions of people for the arising new consciousness' is how the book should be perceived.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you see my problem with this though? When you say this is "how the book should be perceived", these are our words not Tolle's. So it is our interpretation of what he said; it's not what he actually said. So this kind of paraphrasing does actually constitute original research. Thank you for being willing to compromise. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The original quote says 'perceived'. I think 'seen' is fine there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify our principles. Original Research is when an editor takes information from a source and creates his own conclusion. Usually he combines info X with info Y and comes up with conclusion Z. However an editor could also just extrapolate from a single source and create an OR situation that way as well. At the same time Wiki policies do allow, and in fact encourage, editors to summarize and avoid the use of quotes in most circumstances WP:QUOTE. This is an important distinction to keep in mind for future discussions. And by the way, thank you everyone for working together in a collaborative manner to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree here. WP:QUOTE is an essay, not even a guideline, and certainly not policy. In any case, it doens't say anywhere in that essay that paraphrasing is generally considered better than direct quotation. It is impossible to paraphrase without inserting one's own interpretation and opinion (whether consciously or unconsciously).

What Tolle actually wrote is that "this is the context within which the success of The Power of Now must be seen and understood" and you paraphrased this as "this is how the book should be perceived". The first is what he actually said, and the second is your interpretation of what he actually said, which is very different to what he actually said. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What the WP:QUOTE essay does actually say is this: "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations ... provide information directly; a brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves." Gregcaletta (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold face type in the article

According to WP:MOSBOLD, bold is to be used only for a list of defined terms, and is not appropriate to create emphasis for words in the middle of a sentence. However, italics can be used instead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Resources for critical reception

It seems the article focuses mainly on the positive presentation of the book. Does anyone have critical resources, e.g. from the Critical Inquirer. As far as I know scientists have also dealt with the topic of common grounds of religion. How does that compare?

Thanks for further information MelchiorG (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of article using secondary sources

Per this discussion above I'd like to begin a rewrite of this article. At present it is subjective compilation of quotes from primary sources (the book reporting on itself). This is a flagrant violation of WP:PRIMARY and needs to be rectified. It is especially egregious because the book has so many secondary sources that have reported on it. Some are listed below.

• The Independent (London, England)--Tolle in His Own Words the Power of Now

The Independent (London, England); June 21, 2008; 700+ words ...unquote tolle in his own words The Power of Now " The pain-body consists of...Jivamukti centre in New York. chose The Power of Now as her other book (apart from...another devotee, who also chose The Power of Now as her Desert Island Book...

• Telecommunications Weekly--FonoLibro Releases Spanish Audiobook of International Bestseller "The Power of Now" from Eckhart Tolle.

Telecommunications Weekly; August 11, 2008; 586 words ...of its latest production, "The Power of Now, A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment...certain that Eckhart Tolle's 'The Power of Now' will be one of our bestselling...of two of Tolle's titles: "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth." The latter...

• Small Press Bookwatch--The Power of Now in Your Life.(Brief article)(Book review)

Small Press Bookwatch; June 1, 2007; 312 words The Power of Now in Your Life Tangela B. Pierce Morgan...author Tangela B. Pierce presents The Power of Now in Your Life, a self-help guide...s spirit comes directly from God, The Power of Now in Your life blends spirituality...

• WAM - United Arab Emirates News Agency--KALIMA publishes Eckhart Tolle's 'A New Earth and the Power of Now' in Arabic.

WAM - United Arab Emirates News Agency; April 1, 2010; 700+ words ...Eckhart Tolle, 'A New Earth and the Power of Now', translated into Arabic...New York Times bestsellers: 'The Power of Now' (translated into thirty...and Spanish. In addition to 'The Power of Now' and 'A New Earth', Eckhart...

• Cape Times (South Africa)--The Power of Now'.(Entertainment)

Cape Times (South Africa); March 26, 2010; 205 words ...lecture, Finding Your Life's Purpose, will be screened at Labia on Orange on Sunday at 6.15 pm. The author of The Power of Now, finds humour in the absurdity of our lifelong lessons this time round, cutting something of a Mr Bean figure...

• Leisure & Travel Week--Transformations Into Remarkable Men: "The Power of Now" Meets "The Power of Intention".

Leisure & Travel Week; August 20, 2011; 575 words ...tickets go to: http://www.eckharttolletv.com/four-inspiring-events/af/small. Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now is one of the most influential spiritual books of our time. A #1 New York Times bestseller, translated into 33...

• Daily Mail (London)--'Cody Time' Is All about the Power of Now

Daily Mail (London); February 27, 2012; 700+ words ...Eckhart Tolle, and so many of the spiritual teachers who have tried so hard to talk sense into the rest of us, in 'The Power of Now'. It's all about the here and now. Trying to undo the past simply drives us all half- crazy. Similarly, visualising...

• M2 Best Books--Peace Arch acquires screen rights to Milton's Secret: An Adventure of Discovery through Then, When, and the Power of Now.

M2 Best Books; October 2, 2009; 281 words ...Tolle and Robert S. Friedman. The book, Milton's Secret: An Adventure of Discovery through Then, When, and the Power of Now, is being adapted as an action family film, with Donald Martin writing the screenplay; Tolle, Friedman and Constance...

• Risk & Insurance--The power of now: monitoring claims performance for continuous improvement depends on information that is current, relevant and clear.(SPECIAL REPORT: CLAIMS)

Risk & Insurance; April 1, 2010; Weiss, Neil; 700+ words summary * New claims technology brings new opportunity for continuous improvement. * To maintain a high-performance claims operation, insurers need the ability to generate and leverage real-time information. * Best results can be achieved when the capabilities are native to the claims

• The Spectator--The power of now

The Spectator; March 19, 2011; Phillips, Peter; 700+ words Whatever lay behind Radio 3's decision four years ago to reduce the number of live concert broadcasts to a mere handful, it cannot have been the recent phenomenal success of 'live' relays from the Met in New York to local cinemas. Even the service of Nine Lessons and Carols from King's has been a

• The Irish Times--Someday Stories of Success ; Ten People with 10 Things That They Had Always Said They Would Try 'Some Day'. Catherine Cleary Helped Them Harness the Power of Now

The Irish Times; May 4, 2013; Cleary, Catherine; 700+ words S o how did the Somedayers do? We had 10 people with 10 projects and 30 days in which to crack them. Each person was trying something they had always said they'd do "someday". They started at the beginning of January. We had three writers, two piano players, two singers, a table tennis player, a

• Chicago Sun-Times--WE GET WHAT WE GIVE . . . IT'S A KARMA THING' Russell Simmons: "I never liked religion very much. I never had faith in anything that I couldn't see. And yoga really helped me feel more comfortable [with] the idea of being present, the simplest idea of spirituality, the power of now." Series: THE GOD FACTOR

Chicago Sun-Times; April 3, 2005; Cathleen Falsani; 700+ words NEW YORK -- This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine, this little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine. . . . As a rousing version of the gospel song blasts through the dimly lit yoga studio in lower Manhattan, the Godfather of Hip Hop is standing on his head, eyes closed, feet swaying to

• The Independent (London, England)--This Man Could Change Your Life

The Independent (London, England); June 21, 2008; Walker, Esther; 700+ words ...publication of his first book, The Power of Now, which has since been translated...of the Bible - and one copy of The Power of Now; the former X-Files actress Gillian Anderson f chose The Power of Now as her other book (apart from...

• Chicago Sun-Times; December 5, 2010; 610 words ...pals have come up with what looks like a parody of “spiritual workbook” sensations such as Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now and Julia Cameron’s The Artist’s Way. But upon closer inspection, one might actually learn something about oneself...
• AP Worldstream--German-born spiritual teacher agrees to one-book deal

AP Worldstream; August 13, 2003; 360 words ...is author of the best seller "The Power of Now." "Two editors within Penguin independently gave me `The Power of Now' as a gift," Penguin President...2000 after Ryan recommended "The Power of Now" to Winfrey, who gave the book...

• Deseret News (Salt Lake City)--Winfrey's latest pick is Tolle's self-help guide

Deseret News (Salt Lake City); February 3, 2008; Hillel Italie Associated Press; 407 words ...author of the million-selling "The Power of Now," as her latest book club selection...whose other books include "The Power of Now" and "Stillness Speaks...endorsed Tolle's work, citing "The Power of Now" on her Web site as among...

• Winnipeg Free Press--Oprah picks self-help book by B.C.-based writer

Winnipeg Free Press; January 31, 2008; Anonymous; 323 words ...author of the million-selling The Power of Now, as her latest book club selection...Tolle, whose other books include The Power of Now and Stillness Speaks, is a native...endorsed Tolle's work, citing The Power of Now on her website as one of ...

• Telegraph - Herald (Dubuque)--Oprah's selects 'A New Earth' as top book

Telegraph - Herald (Dubuque); February 5, 2008; The Associated Press; 324 words ...author of the million-selling "The Power of Now," as her latest book club selection...whose other books include "The Power of Now" and "Stillness Speaks...endorsed Tolle's work, citing "The Power of Now" on her Web site as among..

• — Keithbob • Talk • 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More:

• USA Today
• CNN
• USA Today
• The Independent
• NY Times
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Keithbob

I agree with Keithbob that the article needs to be re-written without citing the book itself. Keithbob has done an excellent job of assembling sources. The Summary section of the article (now called "Topics contained in the book") needs to be gutted and trimmed down to the maximum allowable Summary word-count in WikiProject:Books. It should probably mainly quote secondary sources, not the book itself.

Then the Reception section should be bumped up with real reviews and quotes from reliable sources and major media. Then, some sort of Impact or Legacy section should be added, or perhaps included in the Reception section ("Reception and impact"), that traces the book's rise to intense prominence and its influence over the years. Plus some negative reviews should be quoted if they haven't been. Plus the citations to the reviews and mentions need to be fixed, filled out, and wikilinked.

Hope that helps. I'm not sure I have time to collaborate. I have the PON book but I haven't looked at it in 11 years, nor have I read any of Tolle's other works. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Publication history?

What about this section? I haven't seen this before in a book article on WP. It seems unnecessary to me. Comments anyone?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that should go. It's incomplete (if the book has been translated into all those languages), and I've copied the main point (its original publication) into the body text. Softlavender (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you everyone, for your help in overhauling this article and making it WP compliant.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Critics

Hello, I have heard a lot of good things about this book and I am planning on buying it. However I have some recommendations about the article. First, I think that the article should be unbiased by using articles, reliable ones, rather Celebrities such as Oprah or Paris Hilton as references for future readers. It sounds not only bias but it does not really provide information about what these people standards and definition of what "a great book" is. It can also be a distraction from the articles, having three or more celebrities as a reference shades more attention on the celebrities than the article itself. Also, I do not understand the reason why the four chapters had been selected. Is there any specific themes they are following? or Is it a way of summarising the book? I would recommend a brief summary of the book under the overview sections. If on the other hand there is a reason of the selection of these chapters then it should be mentioned in the beginning of the section "Selected Chapters". Another of my recommendation would be the sources. I believe that rather than newspapers, having a variety and wide range of references would be more reliable. All the articles are only supporting the books, I think that in order for someone to make a choice, it is important to have pros and cons, or even neutral articles about the book. For instance the reference <ref>"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/eckhart-tolle-this-man-could-change-your-life-850872.html" /ref> that clearly states that the author could change your life as a title, is making sound like a marketing article to sell the book rather than an informative one. Finally, I have two questions regarding the articles. It is mentioned in the first line of the overview, "One reviewer", who is the reviewer? I am also curious to know which bookstore actually sell this book, since I am planning to buy one. Other than that, great articles, and very well organised, and easy to read--Hananbechir (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)