Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Books (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

(7 more...)

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(7 more...)

Articles for creation

(17 more...)

Author's viewpoint about their own book[edit]

In a recent discussion here, about an academic book, another editor made a claim that "The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book." (This is in the context of an author replying to a critical review mentioned in our article about said book). I disagree, but we could use a WP:3O and more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fwiw, the author's rebuttal is intended to be used as the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, it was the last word in a series of polemics published in academic journal; the journal did not publish anything else about it (after publishing several letters from different scholars - not the author, until that final one, IIRC - over the period of several years, all of which are cited and/or quoted by in the mentioned book article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand the notion of a "review" of a book, that excludes the author's own view of it. Red Slapper (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precisely. Othwerise, the section loses its meaning. We should afford the author a right-to-reply but not literally the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've weighed in on the Talk page. It looks like there is a much bigger balance/WP:DUE problem than this one - namely, almost nothing related to what scholars currently think about the book, which is 40 years old. I have to agree, I'm shocked that an author's response to reviews might be used as the "last word". I don't think we should typically afford an author a "right-to-reply" either, myself, unless it's a reply that generates its own notable coverage. (eg, it looks like there was an extensive back-and-forth between the author and reviewers, and it would be strange not to mention that had occurred.) -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book became the subject of a lengthy discussion in Slavic Review, I think it would be fairer for the reader of the article to describe the entire discussion, even if it was the author of the book who had the "last word" in it. It would be strange to cite a discussion of the book, leaving out the author's responses. Why hide it? If the problem is the name of the section then maybe it should be changed?Marcelus (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EveryBookItsReader Campaign[edit]

Hi! I'm working with a small group of mostly-librarians to launch a new campaign focused on books called #EveryBookItsReader. Please let me know if you have questions. Bridges2Information (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about the notability of several books[edit]

Hello. I was thinking of doing articles for a few of the books written by G. K. Chesterton, an author I like. Though, I have absolutely no experience at all in writing articles for books and so I'd appreciate any tips that could be given. Nor do I have experience in the notability discussions of books, so I'd like to know what the book project members think on whether these are notable (attached are sources):

BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally we're looking for whether there are enough reviews from reputable sources to cover the contents of the book without resorting to original research. So the first one is definitely good, based on the Book Review Digest's index alone showing sizeable reviews. That's the method I'd suggest for tracking down additional reviews for the others. BRD has a listing for Alarms and Discursions (1911) and Uses of Diversity (1921)—the latter looks fine and the former looks scarce. There's no entry on Greybeards. I don't see how it'd be possible to do justice to Greybeards based on your listed sourcing alone. Also note that The Academy and The Bookman links here appear to be advertisements, not reviews, and that the Yale Lit Mag is an undergrad publication and thus wouldn't be reputable for purposes of an encyclopedia. Let me know if you need the BRD for any other Chesterton books. I have the author/title index. Happy editing! czar 06:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BeanieFan11@Czar Here is a scholarly article on Greybeards, and the introduction to it in this 2004 edition should also help. PamD 07:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]