Talk:Midwest Book Review/Archive 1

Currently Fails WP:ORG
Listings of this book as a resource for self-publishing in how to books about self-publishing does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell this entry fails WP:ORG unless reliable sources giving significant coverage can be found. There are also serious questions about the groups credibility regarding the independent nature of its reviews. Please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for more discussion on that topic.PelleSmith (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * fails to WP:AGF, fails to notice that the article is a work in progress at the moment, and fails to notice that I have yet to finish working on this article. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on its current state. I wrote: unless reliable sources giving significant coverage can be found. I'm not sure what this has to do with assuming good faith in the least.  Did I say something about editing?  No I didn't.  I didn't AfD this entry either so relax and keep working on it.PelleSmith (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you commented negatively on its current states, during the process when it was tagged with a tag that says Work in Progress. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed out what I believe to be a fact about entry content. Hardly a failure to WP:AGF.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been more polite to be patient. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
I have some issues with how some sources are being used in this entry. Do any of these newspaper articles being used here have more than incidental coverage of the Review, and how appropriate is it to use such incidental mention to source uncontested claims about the organization? It appears to me as an attempt to trump up notability by association (with reliable sources). Here's an example of what I mean in the second sentence of the lead: Neither of these articles have anything to do with Cox or the Review. Within them Cox is quoted and his credentials are given as the editor in chief a fact that can be established by any number of other sources already used in the entry. These articles, with the barest of incidental mention, add no further content to the entry whatsoever. I find their inclusion dubious at best. If they remain it should be noted that WP:ORG specifically precludes such instances of mention from adding to the notability of a subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Editor-in-Chief of the organization is James A. Cox.
 * I phased out primary sources in favor of secondary sources. Both the Associated Press and The Dallas Morning News eminently meet WP:RS standards for secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As if that was ever under discussion. My point is in fact that because they do you are using them for their credibility and notability -- in other words associating the subject matter of the entry with these reliable sources by using them to source completely undisputed and basic facts that appear incidentally in their articles, which are themselves about things unrelated to this entry's subject.PelleSmith (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, incorrect assumptions. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you'd be amenable to use sources with more than incidental mention to do this? Or you'd be happy to agree that these sources have only incidental mention and in no way add weight to notability per WP:ORG?PelleSmith (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see any reason why to exclude any particular source simply because of the degree of mention. 2) I don't see why such a discussion is necessary here. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps asking a third opinion from user:Drmies or user:DGG on the issue would be useful? At a glance it looks fairly notable to me. P.S., are you concerned that the content is advertorial or that the article is being used for promotion? I haven't looked into the sourcing in depth. If you're both amenable getting one or more independent opinions on the notability issue might be worthwhile. The other way to go would be to take the article to AfD and see what comes of it. But I would expect it to survive based on my cursory evaluation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I think it would survive an AfD as well, but I remain skeptical of this approach of source stacking entries. The fact is that little actual significant coverage exists of this organization in reliable sources.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I discussed this a little at WP:RS; I consider them notable, but I am also concerned that this article does not clearly represent   the very low degree of reliability that the reviews have--though a careful and skeptical reading of the sources here does disclose it.  As I said at WP:RS, I think it needs to be indicated that these reviews are not reliable for notability for matters of opinion. The are included in publications aimed at librarians because librarians are willing to work with less than reliable sources if they need information--my primary source of information was simply publisher's advertisements,  Their publications have a reputation for covering books that are below the levels where other publications will review them, and libraries do have to justify buying or not buying them--a   library will in some areas purchase way below our standards of notability. These reviews include those for interested parties and unqualified parties; this  does not make them totally useless--they usually do give an indication of what the book is about, but it does mean that the opinion of the reviews can not be relied on.  Many of the sources here are not good sources: that it is recommended to new authors and self publishers is actually quite telling. Some of the other sources are mere mentions: I agree with Pelle here--I think he understands the matter clearly.  I'm not sure how to word this in the article, but I am at least giving my opinion here.     DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating that you agree the organization is notable. This is most appreciated, particularly after my work on this article. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not factual
It seems that this page must have been created, and is "maintained" (censored) by Midwest Book Review itself. In fact, they even discuss their edits on their own website -- such as the fact that they took out my edit which simply stated that all "reviews" (actually just blurbs) they publish are promotional, which is indisputably true. (Just for that, I'm not going to correct the grammatical mistake in the sentence about "promoting literacy.")

The statement that MBR accepts no financial reward for their unfailingly glowing "reviews" is only their say-so. A self-serving assertion has no place in an encyclopedia article.

MBR has over 35,000 "reviews" on Amazon, and every one gives five stars. They claim that this is just their way of dealing with Amazon's "unfair" rating system and that books have to meet some quality bar in order to be "reviewed", but the fact remains that MBR's "reviews" are badly skewing the ratings on Amazon. Skookumpete (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Worse than ever. Since I wrote the above, much material has been added whose purpose seems to be to buttress MBR's reputation as something other than a blurb factory -- largely through blurbs, of course. Isn't it an abuse to use Wikipedia for marketing purposes?Skookumpete (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest additional sources to further improve the article. :) Cirt (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article could be improved first by eliminating redundancy. Why is it stated twice, for example, that MBR reviews about a third of volumes submitted?

The bigger problem is that many people are going to be driven to this article, as I initially was, by the question "What is this Midwest Book Review that publishes tens of thousands of five-star 'reviews' on Amazon, none of which has any greater depth than a cover blurb? What is their motivation for doing this? What is their business model?" I don't find any answers here. Instead I find a section called "Reception" which dredges up quotations suggesting that MBR serves a useful purpose other than shilling. Despite the meticulous sourcing, the general tone is not objective.

No, I can't point you to a balancing article, but you can easily see a list of all of their Amazon 'reviews' and verify that they are without exception short, five-star blurbs -- a *fact* I've tried to add to this article, and had it removed. If you're patient enough you'll also find comments on some of these 'reviews' pointing out their spurious nature. Skookumpete (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not mean to suggest another balancing article on Wikipedia itself to look at - rather if you could suggest some secondary source coverage to further add to this article, that would be most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have said a balancing source article. But are you suggesting that no statement of verifiable fact (such as the existence of, at last count, 49,529 five-star "reviews" on Amazon) can be made without reference to an external source?Skookumpete (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is correct. That would be a violation of WP:NOR. But have any WP:RS secondary sources reported on this assertion you are making? If so, we could include it in the article. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the source for the statement (to give just one example) that "It selects about 450 books to review out of the 1,500 submitted each month"? Since I posted my original comment some 17 months ago, MBR has added almost 15,000 blurbs to Amazon. That works out to more than 800 a month. So "assertions" from the organization itself are not subject to checking by secondary sources, but facts easily verifiable by any reader (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A14OJS0VWMOSWO) are? I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but something seems not quite right here. Skookumpete (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is correct. Wikipedia prefers sources, as opposed to violations of WP:NOR. If you wish to change the policy, you could try bringing that up at WT:OR. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that the above reason is precisely why I came to Wikipedia to look up this source, and when I saw the article's particularly uncritical description of Midwest Book Review, I immediately looked to see if the "discussion" wasn't blue. No surprise, we've got the discussion here. What sort of secondary source is needed beyond simply linking to the current reviewer profile page on Amazon with a date? This puff-spamming (Amazon reviews get spread out to other sites pretty quickly) should at least have some sort of objective notation in the article. Over 42k 5-star reviews is notable and should not be erased from the main page. Do we need to pull a discursive analysis of the words used in the reviews to show that they tend to be uncharacteristically heavy on the positive? For the majority of Wikipedia users who don't know about or use the discussion tab, this is a misleading article, in my opinion. Rufwork (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would not be a secondary source. That would be a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that adding stats wouldn't violate NOR under the Routine Calculation section of that page. Rufwork (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a synthesis of information gathered from a primary source in order to advance a specific POV and agenda. Not appropriate. Are there any reliable secondary sources that support your argument? Cirt (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be adverse to a sentence like, "On January 22, 2010, each of Midwest Book Review's [exact figure] Amazon book reviews were five stars." Or, more accurately, "On January 22, 2010, Midwest Book Review's last 500 Amazon book reviews were all five stars reviews." There's no synthesis there, and it is useful information.  64.20.17.168 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article already goes into much more detail than that. And that type of sentence would be using a primary source in order to advance a specific POV and agenda. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but this is getting really ridiculous. I added the following statement of fact, with a citation from MBR's own website: "Midwest Book Review posts many of its reviews on Amazon.com. However, it does not post negative reviews, and all books reviewed receive a five-star rating." This has been edited by Cirt so that it is now an apologetic. It's pretty difficult to discuss this without violating WP:AGF, but I have serious concerns about WP:UCS and WP:OOA, and I don't see how this user can chide others for POV and agenda when he or she continues to make unnecessary edits and additions that clearly tend to put MBR in a good light. Skookumpete (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be interpreted in reverse. It is best to simply quote directly from the source itself, rather than POV interpret from it, as was done previously. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no POV in my edit. It was a simple statement of fact. Your edit was gratuitous, and your efforts might be better directed to cutting out the redundancies in the article. Skookumpete (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The inserted - "However..." part of your edit was particularly POV. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So you can dredge up more or less positive citations from obscure books to add a whole section that puts MBR in a positive light, but I can't use the word "however" to qualify a statement. Well, you're determined to have the last word, so I will let you get on with your agenda, whatever it is. Skookumpete (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate changes
Please do not use cited sources to claim things that they do not say as was done in this edit, here:. The letter-writer does not say "all", but rather only 70 reviews had five-star ratings. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Claims by user in the above comment are inaccurate.  The letter-writer, Vivian, did not use the word "many," but "every."  Here is the quote from Vivian from the source  that  cited in the earlier edit.


 * "I clicked and saw over 70 reviews all only 5 star no other star rating. I investigate further and you or your company has done even more reviews all 5 star. I can not believe with all the books you have reviewed that they are all 5 star books.


 * Please explain how you can justify giving every book 5 stars?"


 * The question from the letter-writer was clearly how MBR could justify rating every book with 5 stars. Cox' reply does not dispute that MBR gives every book reviewed by MBR on Amazon.com 5 star reviews.  Further, the next source referenced, |Jim Cox Report June 2007, explicitly remarks, "So I instructed our webmaster (who does all the posting for reviews generated 'in-house' by the Midwest Book Review editorial staff) to use 5 if the book was given a positive recommendation."  This quote was in an earlier contribution made to this article which user  removed.  The most recent edit by user, changing the letter-writer's word from "every" to "many," makes the article less accurate than the edit it replaced, and compromises the user's neutrality wrt this article.


 * I am reverting the edit, but now quoting the letter-writer exactly to reduce the possibility of misrepresentation as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufork (talk • contribs)
 * No objections to the more specific quote, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
Recent additions to this article by have now made this article be way, WAY too much UNDUE WEIGHT in the direction of information about this whole Amazon.com thing. This is not an article about Amazon.com. It is an article about the organization. This is based off of only two primary sources, and was never reported on in any reliable secondary sources. It should be trimmed back down to a length of no more than one paragraph. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: - = trimmed back down to one paragraph. Per UNDUE WEIGHT, the amount of text in the article devoted to this issue should not be more than the weight given to it in reliable secondary sources (which is none). Cirt (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * |Jordan Lapps' "Dangerous Reviews on Amazon", one where "the piece of work itself" and "the creator of the work" seem to pass the reliability test, deals with the MBR's conflicts with Amazon in some detail, and helps explain the importance of including the information in its own section. The discussion on this page helps evidence that the topic of Amazon book reviews is a first-tier reason people come to this page for information.  There have been several requests specifically for content regarding MBR's Amazon.com policy and displeasure shown at the edits made when information about MBR's approach to Amazon is contributed and very speedily removed or severely edited.  When the vast majority of MBR's reviews that are published outside of their own self-publications are on Amazon (50k and counting now), and when their Amazon book reviews are one of the primary ways that MBR interfaces with the public -- and wikipedia's user base -- giving MBR's self-admittedly unconventional Amazon book review policy its own section seems warranted.
 * A section solely dealing with MBR's policy about Amazon reviews does not turn the article topic into Amazon. This is an article about an institution whose influence on the public is, if not primarily, largely realized through publications on that site.  That's why the section was "Amazon.com Review Policy" and the topic there dealt specifically with why MBR's editor in chief felt that Amazon.com's system was unfair, and the means by which they were addressing their issues with that system.  There was nothing about Amazon per se in the section, only MBR's attitudes and usage (their in-house policy) of that online resource.Rufwork (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UNDUE WEIGHT is site policy. Per the policy: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. No reliable sources have given this issue significant discussion. A blog post on someone's personal website fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that undue weight is now given to the Amazon thing, but I think is misrepresenting the issue here as one of "viewpoint" when actually it is about trying to get a simple fact on the page that would enable readers to make their own judgments about the credibility of MBR and its "reviews" (itself a POV-laden word) on Amazon. It's true that my original edit, two sentences backed up by a citation from MBR's own website, was motivated by an agenda, which I have been quite honest about: to make this article informative about all aspects of the organization, not just those that present it as the best thing that ever happened to American publishing. However, I made my edit after a careful perusal of the relevant policies, in light of previous discussion, and did not express an opinion or "POV interpret" anything.

It was also Cirt who chose to delete my edit and substitute a longer section based on Mr. Cox's self-serving explanations, using the spurious argument that it is better to quote than to summarize. If that were true, every article would just be a string of quotations. But it seems a bit odd that the user should expand the section and then complain about undue weight when someone else does the same thing.

I'm all for cutting out all the correspondence to and from Mr. Cox, and going back to the simple statement that only positive, five-star "reviews" (or maybe we should call them "notices") are posted to Amazon. This is not an "interpretation" of a secondary source, it is a simple statement of fact confirmed by the source cited. And it is an important fact, as has eloquently shown.

While we're on the subject of UNDUE WEIGHT, I'd suggest that the whole section titled "Reception" is gratuitous and on the face of it appears to exist simply to give the organization credibility. Unless a negative POV is advanced in the article -- and, as Cirt points out, reliable secondary sources for such a POV do not appear to exist -- I see no reason why a positive reception has to be documented. Skookumpete (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - unless you can present reliable secondary sources to advance your POV that the Reception section is not representative of prominence and weight of actual reception of the organization - then there is no need to remove it. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my last comment more carefully. I'm not aware that it is Wikipedia practice to document the reception of entities, unless it is noteworthy, which is not the case here. Therefore the mere existence of this section (the merit of whose citations has already been vigorously debated; see archive), gives the appearance of an endorsement. Skookumpete (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - You have failed to present any alternative views in WP:RS sources, therefore this material should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
This edit - removing an entire paragraph from the lede, was inappropriate.

Please read WP:LEAD. The lede/intro of the article should be able to standalone as a summary of the entire article. Thus, it is fully appropriate to summarize each subsection in the lede. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph I removed is by no stretch of the imagination a summary; it is a simple duplication, and gives UNDUE WEIGHT to the positive reception you are so determined to document. Skookumpete (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, it is appropriate in the intro. Per UNDUE WEIGHT - you have failed to present any alternative views in WP:RS sources, therefore your claims about the appropriateness of the info are unfounded. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states: "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." A simple repetition of material that appears later in the article, and whose importance has been questioned not just by me but by several other users in archived discussions, is not appropriate in the lead according to my reading of those guidelines. I am certainly prepared to listen to any arguments you may wish to advance that are not simple assertions that you are right and others are wrong. But again I have to express concerns about WP:OOA. I note that again today you have undone minor changes by an anonymous user which were, in my opinion, largely beneficial, e.g. changing "feels" to "believes". I would suggest that it is time for another experienced Wikipedia editor to have a good look at this page and express an opinion about the direction in which it is going. Skookumpete (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relative emphasis is based upon WP:RS sources, not opinions of individual Wikipedians and complaints on talk pages. Again, I ask that you present an alternative view from other WP:RS sources. We do not write Wikipedia articles based on personal opinions of random users. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * we do not repeat information from the article in the lede; rather, we summarize it--perhaps some information about the reputation of the service should be included, but it would be better to have only a sentence. Why don;t the two of you try again for a more balanced lede--and, for that matter, a more balanced article. This does sound a little too much like as defense of the company. Question 1 : in BRI includes Bookwatch and Children's Bookwatch, which of the Gale services indexes their other publications?  question 2: what is the relationship of the other publications to the main ones--I have to admit I have never heard of them before just now, except for Midwest Book Review.

As for  the reception section, saying who mention them does not give a balanced impression, for it does not indicate who does not mention them. As for Cox's defense of their rating practices, perhaps a summary would be better. As for Cox's opinion of reviewing in general, it does not belong here. Some facts might do better: what percentage of their content is self-published?  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lede down a bit - that was a good recommendation, thank you. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Question 1: I am not sure specifically which of the Gale services indexes their other publications - that might take a bit of research. Question 2: Not sure what you mean by this? Cirt (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do they cover? Are they perhaps excerpts featuring regional authors? Are they expansions including more regional authors? They are related publications, and need to be discussed together.,   DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have already done a bit of research on this - but if you could find any other additional sources from which to add to the article and help to expand info related to these questions - that would certainly be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Parallel Article
There is an article here on WP about Harriet Klausner. Without wishing to debate the merits of the article, I think it is worth looking at as a treatment of another prolific Amazon reviewer. It seems to me to present a balanced view of her "reception" with a common-sense approach to sourcing. Skookumpete (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any WP:RS sources to suggest, in order to implement such additions to this article? Cirt (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

, I am not going to debate this with you any more. In fact, debate isn't even the right word, since your answer to every point is "show me your reliable sources!" I pointed to the HK article partly as an example of how sources that might not be acceptable as sources of facts might nonetheless be used to show that questions have been raised. In consequence the article is, in my view, informative, useful, and neutral in tone.

The argument has been made repeatedly that the weight given to the documented reception of MBR cannot be reconsidered unless a properly sourced alternative view is provided. This is special pleading. If I can give an analogy, it is as if someone wrote an article about me, and that article cited the three or four places where my work has been named in footnotes and bibliographies, all of which could be adduced as evidence of my importance in the literary establishment. According to arguments made here, it would not even be appropriate to discuss the importance of that matter unless someone could come up with a reliable source, say an article from the New York Times, that stated "Skookumpete is an insignificant hack." Let's get real. Skookumpete (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content and not individual contributors. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have revised my comments to be somewhat less personal, although I note that WP:NPA states that "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Skookumpete (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * = thank you very much, I really appreciate this. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)