Talk:Etty Hillesum and the Flow of Presence

I've concerns about this article as a book published this year seems unlikely to be particularly notable. See WP:Notability. Also listing the book's contents seems somewhat more like an Amazon listing than an encyclopedia. I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on the notability - but in the mean time could the editors at least try to remove some of the more obviously promotional language and content? Dakinijones (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book? I do not fully share your opinion. As a scholar interested in the subject area of this study, I think this book is well written. This Wikipedia site makes a significant contribution and is far from being an "Amazon listing." It should be noted that: • It is the first book in the world in its genre, i.e. it merges the vision of two prominent thinkers, Voegelin and Hillesum, into one book. • The book could be and perhaps is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. • The book’s subjects Etty Hillesum and Eric Voegelin are historically significant that their written works may be well considered notable. • The book is assigned an ISBN number, is published by University of Missouri Press, is listed in national libraries, found through various Google Searches and sold all over the world (The United States, Canada, Sweden, Japan and so on). I do agree with you that the Content box is not needed. AC 4 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.172.210 (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might help if I share the WP book notability guidelines here:

This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject ^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,^[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
- The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.^[4]
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.^[5]
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.^[6]

Although I'm sure the book is worthy, I'm not sure that it meets the criteria for notablity. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't at this point in time meet any one of the five points above... if it does, the article needs reliably sourced quotations or references to proove that it does. Dakinijones (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering refering this article to WP:Afd. Perhaps the editors would like to merge the material with an already existent page? I have no idea what would be appropriate. But this page was created by the author's own institute (where he is also the web master) about what is apparently a non-notable (though worthy) book. As a separate page, it's really not suitable for an encyclopedia. Dakinijones (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Etty.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Etty.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New to this entire process, hope I'm pro forma: Granted, there may be an element of self-promotion (and certain ESL issues) in this article, but the raw information about the confluence of important contemporary thinkers is valuable. Theologically, at least, Hillesum is key to any discussion of theodicy and what has become its most frequently adduced historical problem (forget about earthquakes in Lisbon), the Holocaust. Hillesum's own terms seem to imply, at least, a reference or an appeal to transcendence. Contemporary thought is uneasy with such an appeal, but has difficulty ignoring it when it comes from such a quarter and such a circumstance. The resulting tension is likely to be productive. Hillesum is sui generis, and thought about her is in its nascent stages. Perhaps a little clemency, a little time? At this point, better to risk a weed than nip a could-be flower in the bud. AT THE VERY LEAST, oh powers that be, PLEASE do not consign this article utterly to oblivion, but preserve it somewhere in some form where its references and footnotes are still available.

Greenislender (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Etty Hillesum and the Flow of Presence. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article[edit]

This is transparently a vanity article written by the author himself. He includes the entire dedication in a citation. Even if the case were made that this book is somehow notable (and not through the author masquerading as a disinterested third party in a comment..), it still shouldn't be written in the style of a vanity article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C400:6A8:ED61:96E2:94DA:E671 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.
^ For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.

[subject-1] The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

[nontrivial-2] "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

[independent-3] Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.

[selfpromotion-4] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[textbooks-5] This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

[study-6] For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]