Talk:Eat, Pray, Love

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eat, Pray, Love article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Romance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Eat, Pray, Love appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 901 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the journey described in Eat, Pray, Love, a memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, was financed by an advance on the book she planned to write about the trip?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

Wikipedia

Name correction

Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman's Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia → Eat, Pray, Love — According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles — Ekabhishek (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Magazine's ahem bitching about this book

I have deleted the following for now due to my concerns about the notability. Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse to list every review. It's also important not to give undue weight. Hanxu9 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly every review mentioned here praises it. It would be good to hear something from the other side.75.41.69.211 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid Hanxue9's revision, which removed the entire section "Feminist and socioeconomic criticisms". Bitch magazine was not bitching about the book: the magazine published a reasoned critical appraisal of the book-movie. Both the review and the way the review was presented in the Wikipedia article follow appropriate standards one journalistic, the other encyclopedic. The section here in Wikipedia gave a fair summary of the article and included references. It does not merit summary deletion.

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be simply a collection of glowing praise. Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view WP:NPV requires that we include a range of opinions. Hanxue9's edit of the article, in fact, deprived this article of its neutrality. Bitch magazine is one of the most important journalists of feminist criticism of American popular culture, so regardless of what concerns Hanxue9 might have, including a section that focuses on Bitch does not go against any Wiki policy of notability. Interlingua 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the way it is now, as one of many reviews. When I first took the review out, it was its own entire section, which violates the undue weight policy. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist and socioeconomic criticisms

In spring of 2010, the feminist magazine Bitch published an article entitled "Eat, Pray, Spend". The authors, Joshunda Sanders and Diana Barnes-Brown, coin the term "priv-lit," or literature of privilege, and describe Gilbert's "yearlong vacation," as a key example of the newly emerging genre. "Eat, Pray, Love is not the first book of its kind, but it is a perfect example of the genre of priv-lit: literature or media whose expressed goal is one of spiritual, existential, or philosophical enlightenment contingent upon women’s hard work, commitment, and patience, but whose actual barriers to entry are primarily financial," they note. The genre, they argue, positions women as inherently and deeply flawed, and offers "no real solutions for the astronomically high tariffs—-both financial and social-—that exclude all but the most fortunate among us from participating."^[1]

Bad reviews of the book belong right alongside the positive reviews. You can see this in basically any article on anything. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no point in repeating material from the review. It can just be mentioned once. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, now that it is one of many reviews and not being given undue weight, I have no problem with it. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1] Bitchmagazine.com Retrieved on 2010-06-14.

Eat, Pray, Queef

Why is there no reference to the South Park episode spoofing the title of this book? Can I put something into the article about this matter, or will this be removed right away? Iago 2¹² 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in question

A recent edit undid changes that had previously added two negative reviews from two reputable sources (New York Times and Huffington Post). As mentioned in the talk page by by other contributors, the reviews mentioned in the article are almost universally positive, and the fact that two negative reviews would quickly be removed (with the justification that their inclusion would result in too many reviews) reinforces the question of neutrality raised by others. 80.187.108.171 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be protected until a good route is found that reflects the mixed reviews the book received-- it's best if Wikipedia doesn't stray into a promotional advertisement. I agree with TheRingess that brevity in the reviews could be beneficial, but not by only removing negative reviews (which also come from more notable sources, e.g. NYTimes and HuffingtonPost, than some of the positive reviews). Changes should be made in the talk page to prevent edit warring. 2003:55:4D0A:6896:B9FF:E13A:182A:748E (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Though the article should remain in the pre-inclusion state, until the review section can be rewritten, presenting not just hand picked quotes, but an overall picture of the reviews of the book. If the new quotes are simply left in, then nothing will get edited. That way, we can avoid an edit war.TheRingess (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRingess, thank you for the response. Keeping it in the current state sounds fine while rewriting. The one thing that I'm not sure I understand is what you mean by "hand-picked quotes"-- are you of the opinion that the previous entries in the review section (and their quotes) were chosen in a different manner? I was surprised anyone objected to those two paragraphs. For example, do you feel a quote from The Huffington Post is really not fit for inclusion where the article already cites the less notable publication "Bitch"? Regardless, I would vote to keep the summary that had been placed at the top of the reviews section, as it added very little text (and no quotes, which was your objection), but presented the polarized nature of the reception by critics. What do you think about that for a start? 2003:55:4D0A:6896:B9FF:E13A:182A:748E (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected (at my request, to encourage using the Talk page as per guidelines), but TheRingess has disappeared. As quoted above on this Talk page: "Wikipedia articles are not meant to be simply a collection of glowing praise. Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view WP:NPV requires that we include a range of opinions." Unfortunately, the article is not neutral, with edits selectively removing negative reviews from notable sources. 2003:55:4D0A:6896:B9FF:E13A:182A:748E (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared? I went offline to take care of my life outside of the internet. Regarding hand picked quotes, yes all of them are hand picked, and I am of the opinion that the number of quotes overall in the reception section needs to be reduced. I suggest 2 paragraphs, the first summarizes the positive reviews, with references. The second paragraph summarizes the negative reviews, with references. That should make a balanced, neutral section that is not overly long in regards to the rest of the article. Neither paragraph should contain lengthy quotes.TheRingess (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually upon re reading the section, I agree that the section is biased, but more heavily biased towards the negative reviews, as the negative reviews seem to get more space. Another argument for a balanced review section.TheRingess (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eat, Pray, Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111207001706/http://bluerectangle.com/book_reviews/view_one_review/2261 to http://bluerectangle.com/book_reviews/view_one_review/2261

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1] Bitchmagazine.com Retrieved on 2010-06-14.

[1]