Changes

:I don't agree that there was no copyright violation because "the article tells what the book is about", but probably there was no violation since it was only a limited portion that was quoted for legitimate reasons.  Er, except that I'm not sure what those reasons are.  Is this meant to be an article about a book, or what?  If it is, I think it's more appropriate to actually describe the book in your own words than to have virtually all of the article being the publisher's description.  So copyright may not be the issue, but I think it would be better if it was not mostly a quote.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that there was no copyright violation because "the article tells what the book is about", but probably there was no violation since it was only a limited portion that was quoted for legitimate reasons.  Er, except that I'm not sure what those reasons are.  Is this meant to be an article about a book, or what?  If it is, I think it's more appropriate to actually describe the book in your own words than to have virtually all of the article being the publisher's description.  So copyright may not be the issue, but I think it would be better if it was not mostly a quote.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:P.S.  And Conservapedia's desire to not have articles about every little thing makes me wonder if there is justification for articles about books at all (with a few obvious exceptions).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:P.S.  And Conservapedia's desire to not have articles about every little thing makes me wonder if there is justification for articles about books at all (with a few obvious exceptions).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)