Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Meaning of the title

can someone plz explain to me the meaning of the title of "In the Skin of a Lion" thx

Well I think the title "In the Skin of a Lion" is actually making a reference to being in anothers shoes. We tend to generally look at the lion as a creature of evil, something that acts without thinking. I believe that the Lion referes to all the characters in the book. Maybe even the city of Toronto itself, the title is telling us to try and look at the city a different way, to see what the characters see and how they see the city. So in order to do so, we must step into their skins, or in this case into the skin of a lion.

But that's just my opinion Alex

in the skin of a lion is the worst book in the world.

That is absolute rubbish! In the Skin of a Lion is derived from 'The Epic of Gilgamesh.' It basically means to be the story teller. For one to wear the skin of a lion, means for then to be center of attention, and tell a story. That is what Patrick is doing. I hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.15.12 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Vocabulary" and "Summary of the whole book"

I am the user who deleted the above section. The "Vocabulary" I found to be a random list of words - some in common usage, some not - intended, I assumed, as something of a teaching aid. I question the presence of such a list in an encycopedia and add that page references for a novel that has been through numerous English-language editions in at least three countries are not likely to be of use. Abhinav Kanaya's "Summary of the whole book" is, at best, unencyclopedic.Victoriagirl 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the deleted sections have been reintroduced under different section titles ("Vocabulary" under "Awards and recognition" and "Summary of the whole book" as "Notes On each Chapter"). As I don't want to participate in an edit war, I welcome discussion on this matter. My opinions, as stated above, remain unchanged. Victoriagirl 23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can i find others who delete my work?? .. i understand your explanation is your opinion in the matter, but it is not irrelevant. Have u read the book?? 572766 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a history tab at the top of all pages, that shows the history the edits that have been made to that page. For each edit it lists the editor who made the change, and the edit summary that was made with the change. You will note that I removed your second insertion of your edits, with an edit summary that said that your edits needed to be discussed on the talk page. Sincerely, --BostonMA 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhinav, your new edits are much better than your original. However, I think they will be too extensive, too much detail when complete. Please try to make your summary more succinct. Thanks. --BostonMA 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K i did that... cut out many words. It is short and brief. Will do the rest later. Thnx 572766 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, and in an effort to avoid repetition, I am responding here to 572766's above comment (directed at myself) and his most recent post [1] at User talk:Victoriagirl. At no point in my discussion of this topic, nor in my communication with the user [2], have I described his work as "irrelevant"; indeed I recognize its relevance to his classmates and have provided a suggestion as to where this material might be posted.[3] My issue with the user's past work was that it was unencyclopedic in nature. I know of no article on a novel in which a vocabulary is provided, nor am I aware of a synopsis in which sentences are not employed. That I have read the book in question has no relevance; the decision to remove the material had everything to do with my understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Again, I ask that the user not make personal attacks. Victoriagirl 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the worst entry I have seen on wikipedia. Many thanks to the edits.

Clean-up=

For sometime a clean-up tag has been on the article. While I've edited it and and reduced the plot summary by about 25%, it still seems overly detailed. Nevertheless, I think it is now adequate and have removed the "clean-up" tag, Sunray (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate ur edits for this page... which i had entered the "overly detailed" notes for the whole book. Thanks for the edit but can u put my name in the article as i started the whole notes for the book. Thanks!!!

Abhinav

572766 (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]