Talk:Esther Vilar

This should be 'The Manipulated Man'

The article starts with information about Esther Vilar but quickly becomes a summary of The Manipulated Man. This is fine, except it's an article about Esther Vilar, not her books :) Piepants 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Piepants

Also, the article is POV. For example, "Whether one agrees with her views or not both books are entertaining, and in the first especially Esther Vilar argues her case well, and with a detail that seems to show that her views are honestly held." That entry is entirely POV. Stating her books are entertaining, well argued, and honest is simply one's own perspective and debateable; many can, and have, opposite view points.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tone

The whole section "The Manipulated Man" is not encyclopedic at all. It appears to argue a point rather than describe the book. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Having not read the book myself I'm left guessing at the intentions of the original author(s) (of the wiki article, that is). My interpretation of the section was that it was explaining Vilar's arguments and supporting evidence through the use of direct quotes and paraphrasing. Mind you, I would agree that the section is not written in an encyclopedic manner at all, as clearly the source of the arguments presented in the section is ambiguous and no critical analysis nor counter arguments are presented (not to mention the poor overall structure of the section). My reason for reverting you, Apoc, was that you slapped a {{npov}} tag on the article (back in May, I might add) without giving any explanation was to why, and when there was no current dispute on the talk page. Templates such as that one should only be used when there is an ongoing dispute about the article's neutrality. That is why it directs the readers to the (in this case, nonexistent) discussion on the talk page and asks that the template not be removed until the dispute is resolved. A nonexistent dispute cannot very well be resolved, can it?--65.24.125.99 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Full protection for one week

I've removed a potential copyright violation and protected the page fully. Alexandria (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for classifying what has been written in this article as copyrighted. As you can see, the article just explained what was said in all books from Esther Villar, and that does not qualify as copyrighted. At best, it would be qualified as redundant information. The burden of proof is not mine but yours, I told you I have looked Esther books and have not found a single piece of evidence that everything that has been written here is copyrighted. What was written here was just an extensive explanation about what Esther taught in her books. Unless you want me to upload all Esther Villar books to convince you what I am telling it's the truth? Is that what it takes to reverse this vandalism? Is this how Wikipedia operates? Sanctioning indiscriminate removal of the good work that is being done in articles will only make people refrain from contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that these enormous chunks of text were quoted verbatim from Vilar's books, since I didn't think actual text written by a Wikipedia editor could be so blatantly non-neutral and unsupported. If it isn't copyvio, I apologize for my mistake, but the text still does not belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is WP:PLOT. Adding extended expositions for each work of an author on their biographical page is off topic as this is tangential to encyclopaedic details about the person. If the individual work were notable enough for its own article (perhaps because of the social impact and prizes it has won) then there may be grounds to add summaries of the length added to this page on those specific articles. If Perene acknowledges this principle then I agree that, if there is no copyvio, a week of full protection may be unnecessary. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

> I have identified the entry which had (for the first time) the text which was the reason the article is protected (I was going to contact the user who did this to request more info). The first time someone posted was in April 30, 2009, by some user with an IP address only: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&diff=458462260&oldid=286957218 - The edition claims "(The Manipulated Man in more detail)". However, the user just posted an explanation about the strategies described in the book, which I currently own (if it's necessary I can send a digital copy to the appropriate party who verify these things in Wikipedia), but never did any copyright violation. Therefore, the whole thing is original. Perene (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you even mean, it's not a copyvio? It's a word-by-word copy of this essay. It's copyvio, alright. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 

Sonicyouth86, if you check the date that essay was added to oppapers.com, you will note that the Wikipedia text pre-dates it, consequently it cannot be evidence of the article being a copyright violation but may be evidence of a failure in attribution by oppapers. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

> This essay was 1) Submitted by: Jimmy111 (not a real person) 2) Date Submitted: 10/11/2011 10:50 PM (after Wikipedia, so it's just a copy from here) 3) Category: Relationships - Length: 6 pages (1,284 words), Relationships Research Papers (no info about a valid source copyrighted).

Anyway, I was surprised to see this whole thing was not copyrighted. I thought as well it was a copy from a book, but it turns out it's not. So yes, I think the article should be unprotected, and if you think it's best to not let in the article (for WP:PLOT reasons), it's up to you. I am merely explaining this is not copyvio, if it is it's not from Esther Vilar or any knowledgeable source. Not everything we see posted in the internet it's a copy from someone or something, people can also be original. Perene (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alice Schwarzer mentioned in the article

Roscelese is attacking this article again. The text I quoted was from a televised debate and I have translated from the DE article about Esther Vilar: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vilar

I have quoted my sources, this thing was even displayed more than once in a documentary, TV interviews, and this user is removing valid contents from here. And as usual, Wikipedia is not doing a thing to prevent the vandalism.

Her justification was: "attribution to unreliable source, rmv apparent original analysis". The debate contents were reported by several sources, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel which I mentioned in the contents Roscelese removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no independent verification of these supposed decades of threats. The Zeit article mentions one incident of a bomb threat to a bookshop where she was signing. If the only source for this sort of self-serving claim is the author herself, we have to attribute it. The changes I made to the paragraph about the debate were only formatting and grammar (ie. referring to people by their surname, because they're not children; italics for titles of TV programmes). If you want to keep adding Schopenhauer, you're going to find a reliable source to demonstrate that he is relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The contents you removed were mentioning the german feminist (and the televised debate), all of them sourced, and I reverted your vandalism. About "death threats" I don't buy that story if the only source is EV herself (she could be exaggerating things to get more attention), EV claimed in other interviews she was harassed by other women, but that's her word, the article was assuming facts. Regarding Schopenhauer, the only reason he was mentioned here it was due to his famous views on women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Views_on_women - see here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I haven't removed any content about the debate, I formatted it according to the Wikipedia manual of style and according to English writing conventions which use surnames rather than first names. Please find a source that connects Schopenhauer to Vilar; your own personal opinion is not enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that, I just looked at the differences between editions and didn't checked the bottom of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&action=historysubmit&diff=466827503&oldid=466801944 Perene (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Esther Vilar

You reverted my edits to the Esther Vilar page. Any reason why you don't accept the corrected information? Pinterandmartin (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pinterandmartin:, because you don't substantiate your changes. In this article she is called Esther Margareta Katzen. I could not find any source for Kratzer, though. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's wrong in Der Spiegel, but fair enough, I see your reasoning. You could have left the correction of my birthdate stand though! Pinterandmartin (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it won't be difficult for you to add a reliable source, I'm sure. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)