Talk:Eat, Pray, Love

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

References

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? Iago2¹² 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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) 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)