Talk:As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen

Title
The title of the book is: As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.191.69 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 October 2009

Consortium review
Also carried in the Baltimore chronicle KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And the Middle East Online. Perry has a heckuva rep; I'm still looking for a different review. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perry is a known anti-moonie conspiracy theorist. I wouldn't call something written by someone who only publishes stuff that smears the Unification Church an unbiased opinion. I seriously doubt he even read the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochus in rice (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can source that to a neutral source, then we'll discuss it. As it sits, he's an award winning investigative journalist, and that is very well sourced indeed. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a neutral source stating that your source is not a reliable. Please remove the conspiracy theorist's comment as it does not comply with the rules of Wikipedia because it is fringe theory which is defamatory to Reverend Moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochus in rice (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Distopia refers to Perry as writing about conpircy theories, not authoring them. And you cannot possibly expect anyone to accept Daniel Pipe's self published opinion as neutral. This is the man who is known to be spreading falsehoods about the current president's history; who founded an organization which created blacklists and intimidated others, who, in short, is widely regarded as fringe if not downright kooky. Highly educated, but not neutral. And that was from his blog, not a respected publication. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I gave you two great sources if you would have looked at them Daniel Pipes a professor who studies conspiracy theorists http://www.danielpipes.org/1654/the-october-surprise-theory and Disinformation a trusted neutral site with both Republicans and Democrats put the Consortium News website on a list of Conspiracy Theory sites http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id104/pg1/index.html. I could find more sources if you wish showing that your source is an extremely left-wing site which means that it is biased and its claims should not be posted. If you do a search on Conspiracy theories and that site will come up. None of the allegations that Robert Parry has made about Reverend Moon can be proven cause they are simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochus in rice (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

consortiumnews.com is a biased source on the subject of Reverend Moon and this is not a book review it is his opinion of the Washington Times reveiw. Consortiumnews.com is the only source of these type of ridiculous allegations futhermore, he makes no indication that he has read the book this is irrelevant and defaming, Reverend Moon is a living person. If you can find a unbiased source that has factual and proven information than it is allowed but this is clearly a violation of wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.124.62 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Consortium news is the only review of the English book which anyone editing this article has so far been able to find. I myself expressed concern, and after discussing with Ed Poor, we determined that the short time since publication is insufficient to determine whether more reviews are likely, and to wait and give this article, which is correctly tagged as a "stub", more time. A far greater concern is the use of the Washington Times, a known biased source, as it is a UC publication, and hence, not any better than "self published". You will note that all the editors have varying levels of unhappiness with this article, but are hopeful for improvement as (hopefully) the book gets more coverage in English language media. Until then, we must work with what we have. If further information does not appear, we can always merge as I suggested a few days ago. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a review of the book. Please read it. Also note that Robert Parry is a Unification Church critic and has been writing anti-Moon stuff since the 70's. How can you possibly think that Robert Parry's self published opinion is neutral. This is the man who is known to be spreading falsehoods about our last president's history as well as Reverend Moon, things about drugs, money laundering and death squads which have been proven wrong, is widely regarded as fringe and IS downright kooky. This is ridiculous that you believe this stuff.

I am removing the irrelevant materials that give undue weight towards a negative opinion which is fringe and defaming. This is completely against wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochus in rice (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Parry's article is not a review of the book. It doesn't look like he has read it.Borock (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I've spent a good bit of time trying to make an article of this. The book isn't even on Amazon; it seems fairly nn. Worse, there is ONE neutral source, which is extremely critical of the book. Both of the other sources are Unification sources. I suggest this be moved to a mention in Moon's article here. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was #2 on the South Korean bestseller list, and it was only released in the US 2 days ago. Want to give it time?


 * Oh, and sorry about YouTube. I hereby note that you don't want me to use it as a source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nods, I'll take off the merge... if you could find a neutral source for the NK rank, that would help a lot. Also, you said you have a copy? Can you scan the jacket front for the image in the infobox? And regarding YouTube, its not that I don't want you to use it - its that it is almost universally rejected on WP:RSN because it fails WP:RS.

KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get it. And thanks for explaining the RSN / RS about YT. The book cover is at File:global-citizen.png. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, that helps the article a lot, don't you think? :-) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Basking in praise) Yes, and it feels good to do something right for a change! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Obsession with sales figures
It would perhaps be more accurate to name the article Sales of As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen, as it currently stands. The entire lead, and thus a sizable chunk of the article, is devoted to this topic. As sales figure data is WP:PRIMARY, it means that the primarysources tag should not have been removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * perhaps you actually need to read what they're saying. The second is referencing the fact that the book set a record, not the actually 200,000 in sales. That's just additional information regarding what the record was. The publishing of that record comes from a third party source that did a background piece on the history of the book. The sales and record information of the book are present in the article to clearly establish notability. Nor do you require a secondary source to fairly establish who the publisher of a book is. there is nothing against using primary sources in an article and your tags look like nothing but pointy spite.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Set a record" = obsession with sales figures. Source for this is a UC subsidiary NOT "a third party source", and we are given no indication who is originating these sales rankings/sales records claims. And please point ot where in WP:NBOOKS it states that "the sales and record information of the book are present in the article to clearly establish notability" -- because I sure as hell cannot find it in there! Why the hades is the publisher mentioned in the lead at all? It is mere bibliographical trivia that belongs in the infobox (which already states it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to take that up with these featured articles Starship_Troopers or The_Halo_Graphic_Novel or The World Without Us three articles about modern books that are considered our best articles and contain that very information.  Setting a record is much like winning an award. And a reliable third party source indicating that the subject is so notable as to become a topic of daily conversation clearly establishes notability. NPOV requires us to cover all significant viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. Most of the stories make a point of mentioning it's performance on the bestseller charts so including that information is to be expected.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Starship_Troopers only lists G. P. Putnam's Sons in the infobox. (ii) No "setting a record" is nothing like winning "a major literary award." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The other 2 articles, which are still FA, still have it in the lead. Starship trooper mentions where it was published in the lead, and mentions the actual company in the body. All of them have it present in the article and not just the infobox. If it's good enough for a FA, it's good enough for this article wouldn't you say? Setting a record, especially for sales, is an indication of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Starship Troopers only mentions the magazine in which it first appeared in (not uncommon for science fiction stories), not the eventual publisher of the book version. I'm sure we could find dozens of books (including FAs, e.g. Night (book)) that don't mention the publisher in the lead. "Setting a record, especially for sales, is an indication of notability." WP:Complete bollocks! Sales figures are far to easy to manipulate to be a valid metric, and WP:NBOOKS makes no reference to it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Starship trooper mentions the publisher in the body, as I said: The novel was eventually published as teenage fiction by G. P. Putnam's Sons. having trouble finding that? All 3 FA, have the publisher in the article, 2 in the lead. If you think what's good enough for a FA isn't good enough for here..well that really tells me a great deal. Most of the other FA are about books which are quite old. David_Suzuki:_The_Autobiography also an FA with publisher in the lead, as do Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution (date only), Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa, Ravenloft (module), and The World Without Us and in the body Getting_It:_The_Psychology_of_est, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Lemurs of Madagascar (book), The_General_in_His_Labyrinth and True_at_First_Light. Almost every single modern book has the publisher and date in the article, with the majority of them having it in the lead. Your bias is starting to show.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Crossmr, not wanting bibliographic trivia, that is already prominently displayed in the infobox, repeated in the lead makes me horribly biased. What pointless WP:WIKIDRAMA. ROFLMAO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the information is present is almost every article on similar subjects that have been judged our best articles. No, it's just your attempt to try and tag and shrink the article to death. It's valid and relevant information . Your continued assault on a very brief plot outline shows that bias every further. Primary sources are permitted and frequently used in articles on wikipedia. We only try to avoid having ENTIRE articles based on primary sources, and we try to avoid using primary sources for extraordinary claims. Neither is the case here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is already prominently present in this article -- in the infobox. If I am 'tagging and shrinking' this article -- it is because others have attempted to bulk it up with trivia, repetition, interminable sales-stats, puffery and UC-self-congratulation in a vain attempt to make it appear notable. Please reread WP:PSTS & WP:ABOUTSELF. Articles should be predominately based upon secondary/unaffiliated sources. And we do not allow the topic-author's own newspaper to summarise what are the most important aspects of his own book for him. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's both in the infobox and in the body of the article in all those articles. We allow primary sources for any non-extraordinary claims. Do you think the brief plot summary is an extraordinary claim?--Crossmr (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) It's only some articles, (ii) "in the body" is a weaker claim than 'in the lead' -- which is what you're campaigning for. The WT piece is a less-than-ordinary source, so is unsuitable not just for "extraordinary claims". Given the WT's relationship to the UC, it strikes me as unreasonable to employ their partisan opinion for what should be a neutral summary of the book's contents. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's in almost every single featured article about a modern book. The only ones it doesn't consistently appear in are the older historical books. Of the modern books, the majority have it in the lead, the rest in the body. There were maybe 2-3 featured articles which did not have the information, so out of 17 featured articles, 14 contained the information. It is in "those articles" meaning all the ones I listed here, 14 featured articles, all with the information in the body or lead, mostly in the lead. There is nothing less-than-ordinary about a primary source. Primary sources are used just fine all over wikipedia, and there is still nothing extraordinary about that brief summary.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)