Talk:Age of Secrets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Problems with Edits
I have read this book so when I have time maybe I will go through and write about it myself.
But you say the book needs reviews, which it had, but you deleted them!
You said it needs pertinent information, and it did, but you deleted it!
You also deleted the chapter notes, which WP says instead of linking to another site for information, include it in the WP page, so although I don’t think those chapter notes are necessary since the Official Age of Secrets website has them, it seems to be what WP would want to have since it provides an enormous amount of information on the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterx45678 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with the "reviews"; this is what the original intro looked like:
'''''Age of Secrets: The Conspiracy that Toppled Richard Nixon and the Hidden Death of Howard Hughes''''' has been referred to in the press as “intriguing”<ref><i>‘Age of Secrets’ intriguing</i>, Las Vegas Sun, September 12th, 1995</ref>, “If you are at all interested in the use and abuse of power in high places, this book is a must”<ref>[http://www.ageofsecrets.com/article.html <i>Nixon bribe, international intrigue spotlighted in biography</i>], The Vancouver Sun, October 28th, 1995</ref>, "The best inside view of what really happened to Hughes and his empire in print"<ref>[http://www.ctka.net/ <i>Best of the Watergate-Nixon Library</i>], Probe, January-February, 1996</ref> and rated one of the top 10 best books on both Watergate and Nixon<ref>[http://www.ctka.net/ <i>Best of the Watergate-Nixon Library</i>], Probe January-February, 1996</ref>. It is a biography on [[Howard Hughes]] personal advisor, and former U.S. Senate Candidate, [[John H. Meier]] and written by newspaper reporter Gerald Bellett.
That is clearly promotional copy. Are there negative reviews of the book? Reviews that call it a nonsensical piece of conspiracy-peddling vanity publishing? Because that's what it seems to me -- but I haven't read the book, nor am I a noted book reviewer, so my opinion isn't really valid on that count.
But as for the content, other segments were just as biased as to cast a very favorable impression of the book and support its central thesis. That's what's known as a "puff piece" -- see WP:advert. Like the original "Plot Summary", and just about every lead-in to each of the 20 chapter headings. Moreover, it was not necessary, nor warranted, providing a detailed breakdown outline of the entire book in a Wikipedia article.
I strongly suggest that instead of trying to revert edits all the time that you actually do something more constructive in order to make the article better. You can start by going back through your earlier contributions to see what can be salvaged, what can be edited for a neutral point of view and what further information about the book (aside from rave reviews that came from the book itself) you can investigate. Alcarillo (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write this article, so I am not going to go and re-write someone else's work. And your comment about being more constructive and make the article better is exactly the points I have been making to you! I'm not going to waste much more of my time on this as I have better things to do then argue with someone who just doesn't understand. In terms of the Reviews though, if there are any negative ones out there we do need someone posting them, so I put a few of the ones they had up and people can add more if they want. I don't think those reviews are from the cover of the book, at least they aren't on the copy I have. And the review that I have a copy of, which was the one that convinced me to buy the book in the first place a long time ago, was never even posted on here, so I won't bother adding that one, as we already have enough good reviews on there. Peterx45678 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's look at the reviews you posted (and I took down, for the time being because they are inadequate):
* ‘Age of Secrets’ intriguing, Las Vegas Sun, September 12th, 1995
- The top 10 best books on both Watergate and Nixon, Probe January-February, 1996
- Nixon bribe, international intrigue spotlighted in biography, The Vancouver Sun, October 28th, 1995
- Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Citation templates in order to properly include references and sources; that addresses pretty much all of them. But the second point, a review from something called "Probe", is what I believe to be a questionable source (please see Wikipedia:Attribution -- it discusses at length what constitutes a reliable, published source). I invite other editors to review the Probe website.
- The third one is much better, however there is currently no way to verify that article, it being published outside the scope of the archive available on the Vancouver Sun website. It would have to be worded in such a way to include something that says to the effect: "according to a Vancouver Sun review of the book republished on the Age of Secrets website". Even then, the fact that it is on both meier.com and ageofsecrets.com compromises objectivity because those sites are clearly set up to promote and advertise the book. See Wikipedia:External links, specifically the section on "Links to be avoided".Alcarillo (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editing
While I appreciate anyone wanting to make a Wikipedia page better, and conforming to WP policies, it should be people who are familiar with the subject matter who make the changes and, as per WP Policies, any controversial changes that someone wants to make must be debated in the discussion area before those changes can be qualified.
The creators of Wikipedia pages put a lot of time, energy, and research into creating pages in WP and they deserve consideration towards any major changes to their work. Especially when many others have looked at a WP page and made their own edits to it, that you are then not only changing the original page, but eliminating everyone else’s edits, which no one, previously to you, had a problem with.
Your suggested changes are noted but as they are controversial lets discuss which ones should or shouldn’t be made.
I am reverting your changes again until we can discuss this. Please wait until myself and/or anyone else has had a chance to speak and discuss this matter before making any changes.
I will go through your changes in details and post another message with my thoughts on which changes I think are fine and which I don’t agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterx45678 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who has been actively participating here since 2003, I think it's fair to say I know what goes into a good article.Alcarillo (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I also want to address your comment "The creators of Wikipedia pages put a lot of time, energy and research into creating pages." While that is true, that certainly wasn't the case with the lengthy earlier versions of this article. Someone merely copied and pasted the extensive chapter notes I found here:[1], which could also be a copyright violation. Alcarillo (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Massive editing done
The previous version of this article was not appropriate to a Wikipedia article. Aside from the strongly promotional language, it contained a very detailed breakdown of all the chapters in the book (20 total, I believe). So I cut the vast majority of the information and left was is essentially a stub. The article could use a neutral take on the book from someone who's read it, as well as reviews and any other pertinent information. Wikipedia is not the place to trumpet a publication (or its subject -- see the corresponding article on John H. Meier) Alcarillo (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I should also note that Wikipedia should not be used to promote the book; it is not WP's purpose to encourage the sales of any publication. In case anyone's not clear on this, please see Wikipedia policies concerning advertisements as well as guidelines for writing and editing articles about books. Alcarillo (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am unhappy with this "stubbing" and wonder if the gist in this old version can be restored without the glowing praise. SBPrakash (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it can, but it would take a great deal of work. As I see it, there are several major problems with that earlier version:
- Original research (see WP:OR): The book was written with the subject's full cooperation, and the author made extensive use of the subject's diaries. (See the review apparently published in the Vancouver Sun and republished on John Meier's website.) Much of the material for the book therefore came from Meier himself and since it's about Meier, that constitutes original research.
- Conflict of interest (see WP:COI): The earlier version of the article clearly was intended to promote the book and the information contained therein as fact, offering no independent, critical review of it. Moreover, some editors to this article and several others related to it were certainly involved in sockpuppetry. See the details of the sockpuppet case here.
- Fringe theory (see WP:Fringe, specifically Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories: The hypotheses contained the book seem to be entirely sui generis, in that there is little supporting evidence outside of the book itself or the chief source for the book, namely John Meier. That the book was published with Meier's cooperation is certain. Therefore it's highly likely it was published also with the intention of promoting his version of the many stories that surround him, none of which have been given coverage elsewhere.
- Notability (See WP:Notability (books)): The book barely meets the criteria for notability, therefore it's unlikely outside verification of the information can be found.
Copyright violation (see WP:copyvio): A more minor issue. The earlier text was taken (practically verbatim, as far as I can tell) from this website.[2] I'm not sure the source of this either, since the website seems to be devoted to a woman who died several years before the book's publication.
