Talk:Ruse (book)

Declined by Tokyogirl79

I'm declining this because ultimately the coverage just isn't here to really show how this book would warrant an entry. I had to remove links to Goodreads and Amazon, as neither can be used as a reliable source to show notability. Ratings on both sites can be easily swayed or altered - something that has been a point of contention with articles in the past. (IE, there was a campaign to lower the ratings for Bend, Not Break and there were campaigns by various authors to raise the ratings for other books.) Amazon is a merchant source, which should not be used as a source in any context. Their primary goal is to sell the reader something, so using this as a source can be seen as an endorsement by Wikipedia of either the product or the merchant itself. Odds are that you didn't mean to use it in this manner (I know you're not that type of editor), but it's still something to be cautious of.

I've seen this kind of misunderstanding before, under WP:NBOOK a maximum of two references need to apply to Notability. If we went around deleting all of the references that do not narrowly apply to Notability there would be no Wikipedia.

I've restored the Goodreads and Amazon (the Amazon "reviews" page not the "sales" page) because these go to Reception, not to notability. I don't know where some editors get the idea that every reference must go to Notability, in fact WP:BKCRIT reads "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:"

• 1. (Two independent reliable sources of any type)The Miami Harold and The Santa Barbara Independent. According to WP:BKCRIT Notability is met end of story (Both articles are about the book's contents, I can't control what those journalists found interesting.)
• 3 (reliable contribution to event) The Washington Post and Senator Menendez Wikipedia editors seem to think that this book contributed to a headline making event. There are more sources on this, but I did not want to make it look like I was padding references. I added a reference to support that the allegations were unfounded to close the section and the outline of the event.
• 5 (Author Notability) Robert Eringer, like him or hate him, is an extremely notable character, both the Prince of Monaco and the President of Russia have running vendettas against him. His article has dozens of extremely solid references and those were just the ones I could use, see my userpage for details about the vendetta against him for daring to ask to be paid for his services.

The book also meets WP:BKTS with its Library of Congress entry. Ultimately, yes, a book that covers ten years of someone's life will end-up in his biography. Again, if there is a policy or guideline against including Amazon or Goodreads reviews please quote it. -- 009o9 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Now aside from that, the issue with the rest of the sources is that the sources by large are not actually about the book but about the material that the book covers. The book is mentioned, but very briefly in passing. One news outlet did mention the book, but I don't know that this would really show notability for the book since it wasn't entirely about the book as much as it was about its author making these claims. The only source that does go into depth about the book is this book review. If you could find more like this then that'd go a long way towards showing that the book does pass NBOOK, however right now there just isn't enough to justify this having its own article.

See above, the book passes Notability on 3 out of 5 cases, where only one is required. -- 009o9 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also slightly concerned that this rehashes a lot of the information already in Eringer's article, but not enough to where I'd necessarily see this as a barrier for acceptance. I would recommend, however, that you do create some cites for various claims in the article that appear to have been pulled from the book. (IE, cite the claims with the appropriate page numbers from the book.) This would help deter concerns of original research, another one that I'm somewhat worried about but not enough to say that I'd decline the article on that basis alone. It's mostly just something that I'd recommend having just so the article isn't mercilessly pruned later.

 Done Yes, the page numbers are there and per Template:Page numbers, my understanding is that the template belongs inside the reference. I thought this would expose them in the reference section. I'll move them outside of the reference so they will display in the body. --009o9 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In the end the fact is that the sourcing for this was just a little too weak for this to really warrant a page outside of its author for the time being. Have you checked with some of the academic journals? This seems like it'd be something that they'd probably review, so I'd be surprised if there weren't more sources out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the book is quoted and reviewed in spy-craft circles, I will be adding those titles as I find them in the "Further reading" section. I can't use them for references towards Notability because I can't tell if they are paid journalists/have editorial oversight.--009o9 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Average reader reviews on Goodreads and Amazon are not usable as a sign of notability nor even as a general aside since they cannot be verified because anyone can write a review. (Using merchant sites is also not permitted because it comes across like Wikipedia endorsing the merchant or the product.) I'm not sure where you got this from, but listing these reviews on Wikipedia has never been acceptable. The reason for this is because anyone can write a review on these outlets, so there's absolutely zero editorial oversight. Heck, authors have been caught writing their own reviews for both Goodreads and Amazon. Robert Stanek did this for years before Amazon finally caught on and many authors have asked their fans/family/etc to write positive reviews. These will never be usable on Wikipedia for any reason at all. They should not be in the article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done yes I've found that the Book project does not want these reviews nor their aggregates.009o9 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, a book being in the Library of Congress does not make it pass notability guidelines either. It only means that the book was accepted into the LoC. Hundreds upon thousands of books receive this and it does not mean that the book passes notability guidelines. I also stand by the assertion that the book is only briefly mentioned in the other articles and as such, is not really mentioned enough to warrant its own entry. The book is briefly mentioned as releasing and the content is ultimately about the controversy as a whole, not the book. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the author's notability. It doesn't work that way on Wikipedia - it can make it more likely that a book will gain coverage, but it is not a guarantee. I hate to say this, but I think that your conflict of interest here is too strong and that you are seeing way, way more notability than is warranted. I'm pulling in another admin to this, User:DGG. If he says it passes, it'll pass, but I really think that your COI is a problem here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I merely noted the Library Congress designation here because the book also met and was not excluded by WP:BKTS. I don't feel that COI is the problem here, it is the way that the guideline is written. For instance, WP:BKCRIT #5 would clearly allow "discriminate collections" WP:DISCRIMINATE by my reading. 009o9 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is, if this was accepted into the mainspace it would be ripped to shreds. AfC already has a terrible reputation for accepting articles without enough sourcing and right now I'd have to say that the average amount of sources for a book article at AfD is about 2-3 reviews that focus on the book and at least 1-2 articles that talk about the book with more than a passing mention. This article doesn't have that. Now if this came into the mainspace and went to AfD with the knowledge that you have a conflict of interest and that someone voiced these concerns to you and you just ignored them and resubmitted them it would likely go very, very badly. Please, it's in your best interest to look for more sources. All I'm asking for if for you to find some more book reviews that aren't published by random, anonymous users. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done 009o9 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Now I wouldn't have really worried about the COI except that you didn't seem to have taken any of my concerns to heart and I have to say, I've seen some of the articles you've accepted at AfC go through AfD and get deleted. I would really like to have you spend more time on this article since you do have a conflict of interest and this will undergo a lot more scrutiny than other articles you may have edited - especially if you say that there is a vendetta against him. This means that the article will not only be under scrutiny from editors who may want to delete it because it could fail NBOOK, from people who don't like COI editors in general, and from people who want it gone because they don't like him. In all of these circumstances the book will undergo close scrutiny, but put these all together and it's really best for this to go out with its strongest foot forward. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, we got off on the wrong foot, primarily because of the section blank combined with the decline, I was not eager to see what you had written. There seems to be some confusion as to what WP:BKCRIT stands for, the subject is "Criteria" not "Critic". Item 1 of BKCRIT, lists "reviews" last item in the sentence concerning "...published works in all forms..." (meaning reviews are the least significant type of press by order of precedence). The press for Ruse is not limited to reviews, although I have now provided two. IMHO, professional book reviews are the very last thing I would consider before buying a book. 009o9 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, it generally takes weeks to get an article reviewed in AfC. When I'm declined, I resubmit and make the requested changes and other polishing during that time. Nothing personal, just getting back in the queue. I think that problem comes from me not reading between the lines that the group's? codespeak is that Notability = Reviews.009o9 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I try to help with backlog conditions in AfC, but as a paid editor, I don't feel comfortable declining articles because it might be construed as fishing for work. I generally find an interesting article, try to clean it up as best I can and set it free if it meets notability, I can't help it if the author doesn't follow and defend his work, so I'm sure some of it does get AfD'd uncontested even if it meets notability.009o9 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone straighten out this so it makes sense.

"In 2014, The Washington Post quoted from Ruse concerning unfounded allegations that Senator Menendez had underpaid a pair of unnamed prostitutes while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.[6] The Daily Caller later reported in 2013 that the story was fabricated by attorney Melanio Figueroa, who admits that he was paid US$5000 by a man named "Carlos" to find women who would support the allegations.[7] " - in 2014, the Post did something, then the Daily Caller did something in 2013, but it was later? Was a time machine involved? Did someone jump the international date line? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this and pointing it out! I've changed "later" to "had". Cunard (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruse (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northjersey.com/news/aroundnj/FBI_agent_says_Cuba_sought_dirt_on_Menendez.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)