Talk:The Eyes of Darkness

Summary

I don't have the book in front of me, but isn't the summary here the same summary from the back of the book? Can we get a better one that is perhaps not copyrighted (not sure how that works with jacket summaries) Pnkrockr 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Eyes of Darkness.jpg

Image:The Eyes of Darkness.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Eyes of Darkness.jpg

Image:The Eyes of Darkness.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

“In around 2020…”

Should there be some mention of the Sylvia Browne passage that the internet has misattributed to this book? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Please uncapitalize the C in “coronavirus disease 2019”. Also, I don’t think the term takes a definite article. 96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the section, so the request is now moot anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just no

In anticipation of the inevitable objection to my removal, I'll just say that especially for such a bare-bones article, this was giving horribly undue weight to nonsensical, unattributed "speculation". What was there was already too credulous, especially considering that every source was just saying something along the lines of "no, of course it's just a coincidence". I could probably say more, but c'mon people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.Jschnur (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to object on the grounds of… but then I realized I couldn’t think of any. Good call. Especially when the source of the other excerpt involved in the madness, End of Days (book), doesn’t even have an article. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just YES. The article is simple but the link with covid is the only real thing to remember. So it's baseless to think that this link is not important. The vast public was not even aware about this book. So it is noticeable atleast and maybe the only reason to remember it. No to censorship. The paragraph was not undue, it discuss about the real content of the book, so it is useful, not 'speculation'.62.11.3.98 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no link; that's the point. I used "speculation" because that was the exact wording that was present in the article, yet it was attributed to no one. Look at the graph of pageviews I just added at the top. Despite feverish (pun intended) brief activity, that's already gone and we're back to normal views for this thing. Per WP:TENYEARTEST, this isn't worth including. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to create a List of accidental predictions or something, go for it, and be prepared to argue for its existence. This article is about the book. It is not about fake prophecies or accidents of history. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)