This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's
50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing.
You can help!
Why are book reviews not appropriate here?
@
Aquillion: You removed the Further reading section with a comment that it violated WP:FURTHERREADING in some way, but I don't understand the edit summary. To me, the requirement that "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" is perfectly fulfilled by book reviews. Can you explain? ☆ Bri (
talk) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are two problems. First, they don't meet the general level of quality that
Wikipedia:Further reading (the more detailed explanation) implies. The examples there are generally not reliable; several of them are specifically listed as unreliable in
WP:RSP. Neither do they meet the level of quality in the list of examples of exceptions to that reliability - historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. These are just random opinions from low-quality sites. Worse, the majority of them are opinion pieces from culture-war grindy political sites - the list includes a think-tank that is literally paid to advance the politics the book represents (AEI) and multiple sources that are unreliable for politics, all biased in the same direction (Quillette, Fox News, the New York Post.) Only a single source there could even tentatively be called unbiased. This violates the requirement that the further reading section be balanced; Balance is not merely a matter of listing the same number of sources for each point of view, but should be measured relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources. If a large number of high-quality sources reflect a given view, then the Further reading section should normally reflect that tendency. If no high-quality or scholarly sources have reviewed the book, then telling people that the AEI or Quillette approve of a book that reflects their politics isn't a valid substitute. It is simply not true that eg. AEI or Quillette will help the reader learn more about the subject - those are unreliable sources (ie. they publish false or misleading information) and ones whose biases on the subject mean that their opinions about it don't actually tell the reader much; of course someone well-established as holding position X is going to express approval of a book that agrees with X. --
Aquillion (
talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Poor quality sources are poor quality sources, and generally should be avoided. Placing them in a different section does not alter that. If they're known to be of poor quality, they won't help the reader learn more, and may in fact even result in them "learning" things that are inaccurate. If those sources want to be taken more seriously, it is on them to improve their quality and factual accuracy.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 09:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's
50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing.
You can help!
Why are book reviews not appropriate here?
@
Aquillion: You removed the Further reading section with a comment that it violated WP:FURTHERREADING in some way, but I don't understand the edit summary. To me, the requirement that "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" is perfectly fulfilled by book reviews. Can you explain? ☆ Bri (
talk) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are two problems. First, they don't meet the general level of quality that
Wikipedia:Further reading (the more detailed explanation) implies. The examples there are generally not reliable; several of them are specifically listed as unreliable in
WP:RSP. Neither do they meet the level of quality in the list of examples of exceptions to that reliability - historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. These are just random opinions from low-quality sites. Worse, the majority of them are opinion pieces from culture-war grindy political sites - the list includes a think-tank that is literally paid to advance the politics the book represents (AEI) and multiple sources that are unreliable for politics, all biased in the same direction (Quillette, Fox News, the New York Post.) Only a single source there could even tentatively be called unbiased. This violates the requirement that the further reading section be balanced; Balance is not merely a matter of listing the same number of sources for each point of view, but should be measured relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources. If a large number of high-quality sources reflect a given view, then the Further reading section should normally reflect that tendency. If no high-quality or scholarly sources have reviewed the book, then telling people that the AEI or Quillette approve of a book that reflects their politics isn't a valid substitute. It is simply not true that eg. AEI or Quillette will help the reader learn more about the subject - those are unreliable sources (ie. they publish false or misleading information) and ones whose biases on the subject mean that their opinions about it don't actually tell the reader much; of course someone well-established as holding position X is going to express approval of a book that agrees with X. --
Aquillion (
talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Poor quality sources are poor quality sources, and generally should be avoided. Placing them in a different section does not alter that. If they're known to be of poor quality, they won't help the reader learn more, and may in fact even result in them "learning" things that are inaccurate. If those sources want to be taken more seriously, it is on them to improve their quality and factual accuracy.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 09:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
