Talk:Anthony Summers

Robbyn Swan
If she is going to be mentioned, she needs her own page. Yet, she tries to obscur biographical data. Why?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1417:47BC:F07C:F479:7A7D:D924 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
We could add perhaps a bit more about his boyhood and early years, as well as the precise nature of his degree from Oxford, his move into journalism, and his transition to full length investigative books.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Summers. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102200219/http://thecwa.co.uk/daggers/2012/non.html to http://www.thecwa.co.uk/daggers/2012/non.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Subtitle of 9/11 book?
I'm reading this book now, and my copy has the subtitle of the 9/11 book as "The full story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden", which is different from the subtitle mentioned on the page here. Not sure if that's a discrepancy or not. Perhaps mine is a different edition or perhaps the book subtitle does in fact need to be edited.Bdavid1111 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to revert it back for the time-being since that is the version cited in the citation. I do see versions with the "Ultimate Account", "Definitive Account", and "Full Story". Not sure how to rectify it unless we just remove the subtitle. Thoughts? -Location (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine I guess. Could just be an older version or different version of the book that has the different subtitle.Bdavid1111 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviews
The book descriptions could do with a more balanced selection of reviews. Mass deletion of description of article subj’s journalism career is not a solution. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cambial Yellowing I know it was major cut, but I think the mistake was in having more than a simple bibliopgraphy in the first place. All of those extended book descriptions and reviews belong on articles for the books themselves (if they are notable). Most author articles follow the simple bibliography format. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of author or journalist articles with more detailed descriptions of the subject's work. More importantly, even were there separate articles for those books which have significant coverage, that would not preclude a summary of their content here. The section describes the greater part of his career and what gives the subject notability, so deleting its content wholesale is not appropriate. That said, there is nothing to prevent the addition of a simple "reference" bibliography at the bottom of the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree. 90% of the content is positive reviews, not summaries. I can't think of a way to balance that out or remove those without simply converting this to the most common format, a simple bibliography. Maybe we can spin the list off into a separate article, if it warrants it, but the way it currently is is heavily promotional. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is literally no reason whatsoever to spin the list off into a separate article in a 27kB biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, then again, 90% of the content is positive reviews, not summaries. Just because someone took the time to add those and source them does not mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that where there are negative reviews of any of the works in reliable sources, they ought to be included. Contrary to your claim about most author articles,. it's entirely standard to have descriptions of the author's work in the article (see the FAs here for examples). Your claim of it being 90% positive reviews is not reflective of the content in that section. There is significantly more space given to negative or ambivalent views in both the Eleventh Day and Official and Confidential sections, and much of the content discusses other aspects (i.e. where they have participated elsewhere as a result of the work, etc.) <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think summary prose describing his works such as those in the FA's that you linked would be fine (though I wouldn't compare Summers to Asimov and Hemingway), but not in the list format it's currently in, and not with the WP:PROMO. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As the user that tagged this and brought it to FTN, my concern isn't just that it's promotional (which would be a problem in its own right), but that it's promotional of fringe content, which makes it a much more severe NPOV violation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a body of work all published by major publishing houses, all reviewed in major newspapers (and some in journals), and which includes a Pulitzer Prize history finalist and other books praised by professional historians. Your description of it as "fringe content" suggests a lack of familiarity with how that term is used on this website. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:FRINGE guideline states: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field and other examples include conspiracy theories. Both of these apply to more than one of Summers' works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to which reliable sources? More to the point, that's about using sources. None of Summer's work is being used as a source here for a statement of fact, other than for what the content of the book is. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick search finds that he's listed among notable conspiracy theorists in Reclaiming History (book), The Stigmatization of Conspiracy Theory (book), and Sophistic Synthesis in JFK Assassination Rhetoric (article). There's precedent for calling him a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia, in articles such as JFK assassination conspiracy theories and Death of Marilyn Monroe. Also, WP:FRINGE does apply to articles about fringe topics as well as the use of fringe sources, see WP:EVALFRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE among other sections. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of the latter two sources you mention describe Summers as a "conspiracy theorist", notable or otherwise. Nevertheless the point about critical views of his work Conspiracy/Not in your Lifetime is well made. The solution is to include other opinions of that work that appear in reliable sources, as I already advocated above. As to commentary elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is not a source, and I note that the Monroe article to which you refer makes that claim and notionally sources it to one credible work: that work does not use the label given in the article, an unfortunate violation of BLP. If you believe the description of the books to be excessively promotional or positive as compared to the available sources, presumably that is based on a reading of the views on their content available in RS. Again the solution is to add those (presumably negative) reviews or comment about the works, not currently included, that lead you to that conclusion. I've made a start with Sarah Churchwell's comments on the Marilyn book. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I should clarify some of the things I'm claiming here. My search was a little more thorough than a find command for the phrase "conspiracy theorist". To quote the relevant parts of the latter two sources:
 * The Kennedy assassination still figured prominently in conspiracy theories of the 1970s. ... Anthony Summers’s Conspiracy (1980) ruminate[s] on possible links between the Kennedy assassination, elected officials, and the mob. Since they focused on the questions of who and why, these texts no longer presented fragmented accounts that delved into minor details and specifics of the assassination, but presented full-blown conspiracy theories. – Thalmann pp.169–170
 * Not too surprisingly, the majority of conspiracy theories are in fact not positive theories at all ... Some of the major, best-selling conspiracy books ... and Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, for example – Gilles p.4
 * It seems quite clear that these sources recognize him as a conspiracy theorist. Not to recognize this on the article presents a WP:FRINGE problem. Regarding other Wikipedia articles, citing precedent is not the same thing as citing a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you felt your search was more thorough than a find command, but your reading of the texts falls short of the close follow required in a BLP. Even including what you omitted in ellipsis, there is nothing "quite clear" in the logical jump of original research you make to labelling Summers using your preferred term. In addition, an unreviewed conference paper from an association of writing teachers is no kind of basis for BLP contentious and derogatory claims. This would need multiple explicit RS, not, as in this case, merely one non-scholarly source who is actively and explicitly setting out to discredit the subject, and one source that does not use the term. I do agree that we should mention what Thalmann actually says, despite its brevity and passing nature. "Precedent" is not a factor in determining Wp content. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 22:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's my thought process at the moment: As I quoted above, WP:FRINGE applies to conspiracy theories. It's been established that the ideas in his books involve conspiracy theories. Therefore, WP:FRINGE applies to this article and we're going to be expected to follow all of the instructions under Fringe theories when considering this article. It is currently in violation of some of these instructions, and significant editing is needed to rectify this. That's where I'm at right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is not about fringe theories, it's about an author who has written books on a wide variety of subjects. So your contention that WP:FRINGE applies to this article is not based in any logical application of policy. Your thought process falls down at multiple points. A passing mention in a book by a research fellow at a minor institution does not establish something contentious to the standard required in a WP:BLP (the policy we have to follow). Secondly, Wp:FRINGE is not applied to an entire article unless the subject of the article is itself a fringe theory, not the case here. It's applied to specific content within the article. There is no fringe theory being promoted. If you think otherwise state what text you think is promoting a fringe theory. Not text that is merely talking about a book that another author says presents a conspiracy, but text that actually promotes the theory that is ostensibly contained within the book, in this article. Given there is only one sentence that discusses any specific content in Not in Your Lifetime (sourced to the Tampa Bay Times and reported in other mainstream news sources), the argument that it constitutes promotion of a fringe theory is groundless. The attributed claim here in a single sentence is appropriate, as fringe views should be discussed to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources, as this content is. The criticism by Thalmann ought to be included in the Not in Your Lifetime section, as should other positive and negative reviews. What significant editing, maintaining adherence to BLP policy, do you think is needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 03:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoover
I've followed FTN and NPVN to the discussion that is going on here.

The article currently states "Summers interviewed more than 800 witnesses" for his book on Hoover, but the source states that he "conducted 800 interviews for the book". Given that it is possible to have multiple interviews of one witness, "witnesses" and "interviews" should not be interchangeable. Secondly, this statement seems to have origins in the book which states: "These paper sources, along with tens of thousands of FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act – and more than 800 interviews conducted for this book – are the pieces of the jigsaw that lead to this portrait of Hoover." Should this statement be qualified with something like, "Summers stated that he conducted more than 800 interviews for the book" or is it good-to-go because reliable sources have reiterated it?

Stephen E. Ambrose wrote that Summers used "anonymous and hostile sources" and "[relied] heavily on innuendo, rumor, hearsay and his own speculations", so I would think that is relevant information that should be added. - Location (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think "interviews" is more accurate than "witnesses," if the sources say "interviews, for the reasons you say. Also, I think Ambrose's quote is relevant. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)