Talk:Rereading Ancient Philosophy

(section 1)

In response to this nonsensical edit, which I regard as barely better than vandalism, the reason why it matters that a book is reviewed in a learned journal is that it shows that the book made an impact on the world of scholarship. I grant that there may be people who do not care about scholarship. They have the same right to live on God's Earth as anyone else, but they ought not to remove mention of book reviews in learned journals simply because they do not care about such things. Beside that, in Wikipedia terms, the fact that a book receives a review in a reliable source helps to show that the book is notable, per WP:GNG. Anyone who would remove mention of a review of a book, finding it unimportant, owes us an explanation of why they think an article about that book should exist at all. It makes no sense to remove evidence that an article is about a notable topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel so strongly about this that I am going to repeat myself and do some shouting. Wikipedia is not supposed to have articles about non-notable subjects. The only way to show that a subject is notable per our policies is to show that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the specific case of a book that means that in general the existence of an article about the book cannot be justified unless it can be shown that the book has received reviews. THAT IS WHY I ADDED MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOK RECEIVED A REVIEW. This is all obvious and I shouldn't have to say any of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again

I have had to revert David Eppstein's borderline vandalism once again. This time, the borderline vandalism was made with the edit summary, "You might as well have a separate section describing who published it or who wrote it. It conveys no useful information about the book. It is not a signal honor, just something that happens for most humanities books." Yes, the review does convey "useful information about the book" - it shows that it was reviewed in a learned journal and that it received scholarly recognition. It may be true that this is true for "most humanities books" - but obviously the reader does not know that the book received reviews unless the article mentions as much. Mentioning the review provides a starting point for those interested in the book's reception and is legitimate information. See the discussion above, David Eppstein. Your rationale is fatuous - it is the equivalent (if you want an example) of removing mention that George W. Bush was criticized from the article about him on the grounds that, "Most Presidents get criticized". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, would you please stop vandalizing the article? There is no credible rationale for what you are doing. We don't improve articles by removing evidence that they are about notable subjects, and "If that's the only reason you think it's notable, then it's not notable" is a nonsensical non-sequitur. The policy you cited - WP:NOTINHERITED - is irrelevant here. You are confused in thinking otherwise. It states "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" - I am not suggesting that the book Rereading Ancient Philosophy is notable because it is associated with some other subject but because it received a review specifically discussing the book. I'm amazed that an admin would show such a non-existent understanding of basic policies such as those concerning notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)