Talk:The Tipping Point

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Tipping Point (book) → The Tipping Point—The book is the most common usage so there's no need to disambiguate. The Tipping Point is already a redirect page. - JSmith60 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

support move - no need for disambiguation. --Biblbroks's talk 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: There's a bit of a mess here. There are near-identical disambigs at Tipping point (disambiguation) and The Tipping Point (disambiguation), which should IMO be merged. Tipping point was a well-established term before the book, and is the main usage of the term without the leading The of the book title. I can argue the proposed move either way, so I'd leave it where it is, which seems safest. Andrewa 10:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Tipping point (disambiguation) lists 3 items named "The Tipping Point". I've merged the 2 disambig pages; that was just obvious to do. --Alvestrand 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Andrewa's comments that tipping point is the most common meaning of "tipping point" is true, but not especially pertinent, since we are discussing the phrase "The Tipping Point", which is different. Similarly, Alvestrand's observation, that three items are listed at Tipping point (disambiguation) which begin with "The Tipping Point", does not preclude there being one dominant usage. No-one has asserted that the book is not the primary meaning of "The Tipping Point", and indeed it does appear to be the primary meaning. This article has been renamed from The Tipping Point (book) to The Tipping Point as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetippingpoint.jpg

Image:Thetippingpoint.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) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Added criticism section

have added a section on criticisms of the book for balance. --Gilgongo (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited criticism of Tipping Point

I'm going to perfect your Tipping Point Page this Christmas, by adding more content details, instead of focusing on your prose, which I think is already quite good:) as is. I'm a psychology student, so this book is up my alley :p So i hope you don't mind. By the way, i highly recommend you read his other book Blink, as well as his newest book Outliers :) He's a good writer. He's quite skilled at elucidating key concepts without coming off as a pedantic snob, that's why i've becoming a Connector of sorts for all my friends :) telling him about the book.

the above quote was me :p i forgot to tilda it. Also i slightly edited your criticism section. Just added a few more words. ToasterCoster (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, ToasterCoster --gilgongo (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This book is a classic materail and bring in some of the concep that are so common but very uncommonly viewed from the point of view the author has presented. I would suggest it as a must read for avaid reader and critical thinker. Jaydeep Adhikari... Mumbai India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.105.162 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Freakonomics' explanation of crime decrease

I don't have the book handy, but I think Levitt's explanation was a bit more detailed than that. IIRC, abortion was only one factor, increased police presence and longer prison sentences were also attributed as having a positive effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - he cites four factors, but the 'abortion' one was the famous one. I have added a reference to Steven Pinker's rebuttal of that. Pinker also cites an experiment that supports the 'Broken Windows' idea, but I didn't want to expand the section.--Armulwp (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have changed 'demonstrated' to 'suggested'. Pinker doesn't demonstrate (and the link to an anonymous blog providing the text is neither refutation nor demonstration), but argues, and not terribly convincingly, either. Hence to claim 'demonstration' is incorrect. At most, Pinker presents an unvalidated rebutting opinion.42.61.202.252 (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant source of criticism

The final source cited in the scientific reception section doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's standards. The paper is hosted on Academia.edu, where anybody can publish his own work and nothing is peer reviewed, and it contains numerous grammatical errors. The author isn't an authority, he's just some guy who wrote a thing and put it on the Internet. The whole paragraph, with the source, should be deleted. 72.28.137.35 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The Tipping Point → The Tipping Point (book) – This is a reverse version of the decade-old (July 2007) RM above. There was no consensus for the move to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with Andrewa and Alvestrand casting Weak oppose votes. The Tipping Point and The Tipping point should redirect to the Tipping point disambiguation page which was created in September 2006, has no specified primary topic, and had a {dab concept} tag appended in February 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, no primary here. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And also Fork the article tipping point, out of the current Tipping Point dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fork what, exactly? "Tipping point" is not an encyclopedic concept in its own right, it's just a WP:DICDEF. The current tab page is fine, and "The Tipping Point" means the book.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Another possibility suggests itself by taking a page from the recent Talk:The Human Factor (Graham Greene book)#Requested move 27 August 2017 which ended with The Human Factor moved to The Human Factor (Graham Greene book) and The Human Factor (book) moved to The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the Way People Live with Technology. Analogously, instead of moving this article to The Tipping Point (book), it could be moved to The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, what? If you're going to propose a move away from having a primary topic, please give an actual reason why the current topic is not the primary one. I don't see any rationale above, other than that a ten year old RM was possibly flawed for some reason. We don't need to consider all the entries at Tipping point when assessing primary topic here, the addition of "The" on the front means we only need to consider topics actually called "The Tipping Point". And of those, page views would suggest that the book is hugely primary over the other three contenders: [1] Absent any other rationale, I don't see any justification in changing the status quo. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru. The book is the clear primary topic for the title. Station1 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

African Century Journal

I missed the edit. There was a reference to a widely read criticism of The Tipping Point which was removed by Goingbatty claiming the source was merely non peer reviewed etc. This is not true. The referred source was a journal "African century journal' ISSN 2514-5673 which is peer reviewed. The source referred to academia.edu was simply the easiest one for people to access a journal archive older works and the url will keep changing. It is not Wiki policy to attack sources on 'credential basis' and Gong batty does not suggest that the article which is incredibly widely read was in any way incorrect or the facts were mistaken. But even on credential basis the editorial board of the journal includes several professors and previous editorial board members include the world famous scholars such as Dennis Brutus and prof Ade-Ajayi. Also the Center for Disease Control confirmed the criticism in the article. I will revert the edit. Napata102 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If the Center for Disease Control has directly commented on this book, summarize that, and cite the proper source. We are not interested in first-hand knowledge of these things, it must be verifiable. Do not combine sources to imply something no source says by itself, as this is WP:SYNTH.

Saying that "There has also been criticism..." is far too vague to be acceptable. This is an example of WP:WEASEL wording. You would need to explain to readers who is doing this criticism, and explain it in a way that indicates why they should care. Any popular book will have mountains of "criticism" for just about anything, but we do not assume that all criticism is equal or relevant.

Further, just leaving this totally unexplained, free-floating comment that the book has "...underlying theme of racism and homophobia" is over the line. Comments like this will need context, or at a bare minimum, there must be some path for readers understand this context for themselves. Attributing this criticism to the African Century Journal or Oladapo Ladimeji would likely leave more questions than it answers. If this person's opinions are noteworthy, you should find something better than a WP:PRIMARY source for them. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)