Talk:The Sign and the Seal

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

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

[Untitled]

This article is clearly just a dump of an opinion piece written by Gil Kezwer; it may even have been added by the author himself, and I can find no trace of it searching for terms on Google. It is unlikely that this piece carries no copyright, and as such, unless it was contributed by the author himself (a possibility so distinct that I have refrained from adding a copyright warning for now), it would constitute a violation of the copyright agreement.

Since it is an opinion piece, it also violates Neutral point of view. This article is, certainly, not fit as an encyclopaedia entry at any rate and much be rewritten.

--Sbp 12:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree on the previous, that a rewrite is needed. The whole article is a laugh: it contains only Gil Kezwer's person opinion, there is virtually on info about the book itself (i.e. chapters), furthermore there is nothing about Atlantis in this book, as Gil Suggests. I will make a rewrite ASAP, possibly in the upcoming weekend.

Patrick1982 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made a cursory copyedit. Needs alot more. JDR 20:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section

Deleted section on reception as it's entirely one sided, and just about the opposite of neutral, violating almost all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Deleting this section is not vandalism. It is potentially libelous, and as other discussion indicates, needs to go. Discussion here is unanimous. If someone objects, they can attend to this issue with a NPOV rewrite. The addition of such a section, written as it is, is in it's self vandalism.Didshe (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're incorrect on a number of points. The section is well sourced. Reliable sources indicate that the book, despite selling well, was not generally favorably reviewed. Therefor, it does reflect Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. The discussion you refer to here is over five years old and refers to a entirely different version of the article. In other words, there is no unanimity for your changes. FInally, while I now understand that your edits weren't intended as simple vandalism, removing sourced sections without even an edit summary will usually be taken as vandalism on Wikipedia. ClovisPt (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]