Talk:Patriots (novel series)

Refimprove tag

Most of these 36 references are blogs, listings, or otherwise self-published material, not to speak that most are actually just one and the same reference. That's a far cry from "properly referenced". MLauba (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of adding more references from newspaper and magazine articles. Trasel (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please consider condensing the references which are exactly the same using <ref name"example"> reference </ref> followed by <ref name="example" /> for each subsequent occurence and get rid of all the blog and self-published material, bad sources detract from an article (see WP:ELNO). MLauba (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The new edition of the book was just released five days ago, so there are not yet any hard copy refs out there--mainly on-line mentions. I will continue to update refs--replacing online refs with hard copy--as they become available. Trasel (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception & Criticism Section

This section contains repetitive detail--i.e. a series of reviews, largely by the survivalst community--that may be confusing to the general interest reader. I think we can remove some of the smaller sources and retain a representative selection of views without losing content. I'll try to make this edit in the next 24 hours or so... --Whoosit (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope I've done as I said. I've taken out the verbose reviews by the minor sources (kept them as reference links to back up general claims about the book's popularity). I think we have a good cross section of opinion here--a "mainstream"/ "New Yorker" book critic (Daily Beast), a conservative press outlet (World Net), a libertarian columnist (Wolfe) and an eco/green reviewer (Erwin). Surprisingly (or not), all reach pretty much the same consensus on the book's flaws & merits. A minor point: the last line about book sales references Rawles' blog. That's a weak source for sales/promotional data. Would be stronger if we could get that quote direct from Amazon or Nielsen BookScan, though I'm not sure where exactly to find it on their sites. --Whoosit (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, yeah, it's sucessful, and did garner some positive reviews, but I'm suspicious of an article that has it's content's recieving almost completely favorable reviews. If you were to look on Amazon, the book has gathered a very polarised reception, with many citing the weak storyline and poor, santimonious characters as weak points. The novel's enthusiasm about guns is also lost of almost all European countries. Can we rectify this with a more balanced range of reviews?- J Lynch

• The biggie with this is that it has to be by reliable sources. If the readers are polarized but the critical reception is almost entirely positive, that's what we have to go by. The most we can do is stress that it's critical reception and not general reception.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I want to explain some of my removals. First off, I'm not trying to get the article deleted or cause trouble. There's just an overwhelming amount of sources that should not be here. Merchant sources should never be used as sources and it doesn't matter what they use as a way of summarizing the story or as a blurb. It doesn't count towards notability in the slightest and is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia goes. On a fan wiki? Sure, but not here. I also removed a lot of blogs that wouldn't be considered a reliable source here on Wikipedia. Blogs can only be used if they're by someone that's considered to be a very important and very recognized authority, meaning that to be usable the person would have to pretty much be notable themselves. I also removed a lot of primary sources. Primary sources are things released by the author, their publisher, anyone involved with the author at all. The only time they can be used is if it's backed up by multiple independent and reliable sources. I also removed a link that didn't mention the author or this book at all. Such links don't really help the article much at all and aren't really necessary. There's other things, but this is the major stuff.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also removed the various mentions of how many copies were printed for each version of the book. The reason behind this is that while it's good to mention the various names the book has gone through and publishers, print runs are generally irrelevant to the article unless someone specifically mentions the print run amounts in a non-primary source. The only time print amounts make a difference and get put in Wikipedia articles is usually when it's an extraordinarily large amount of copies, which again- is when the amount is commented on in reliable sources. I also noted that there's a lack of sources for at least one of the two sequels, so I think that it might be a good idea to create a section here for the sequels and redirect them to that part. We need multiple RS to show notability to merit individual articles, which I'm not finding so far.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of WP Pages for Sequels

Another editor deleted the WP pages for both of the sequels to this novel. I have restored those pages. Since they were both New York Times best-sellers, they certainly merit having WP pages. Please seek consensus before making deletion decisions for extant WP pages that have already been in development for several months. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Being a NYT bestseller does not give automatic notability and multiple pages for books that have sold well enough to be on the list have been deleted or redirected for just this reason. Since you insist that redirecting to the main article is not an option, I'll nominate them for deletion. Putting in a lot of work to an article isn't really a good reason to keep an article either, to be honest. If that's all it took, there'd be about a few hundred thousand more pages on the wiki.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of balance, WP:COI

The article as it is today is purely a promotion vehicle for the author and his (mostly self-published) books. Not one single word of criticism is allowed. Full of trivia, either unsourced or sourced to the author. And looking at the edit history, you see that the author himself is actively editing the article, in a massive WP:COI. I looked at the article to find what the books were about. Since I'm not into survivalist/gun nut porn, I'll give them a pass. I don't have the time to try to clean up the article, the author would just revert everything anyway. 202.81.249.94 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriots (novel series). 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/20140223141254/http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/10/notes-from-jwr-752.html to http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/10/notes-from-jwr-752.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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)