Talk:The Wars for Asia, 1911–1949

Comments

Elfelix, if you insert general sentences like this:
In the late 1920s under Chiang Kai-shek the republic became a national power, but unity of command eluded its government; it remained a shifting coalition of warlords. In 1917 the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia. The Soviet government inherited the expansionist policies of the Czars, yet duplicitously managed to project a benign international image sustained by the allure of its then novel party ideology.
then I predict it's all going to get removed, because this isn't a quote about the book, it's an argument that the book is making, presented as if it's true. I have nothing against you or this book or this author, but you're adding content here that is not written in an appropriate way for an article about a book. You have to describe the book as third party sources describe it, with links to third party sources. Amazon.com reviews are not going to be seen as independent sources. Simply, we're supposed to describe how other people think of the book, and not just repeat what's in the book. And if you don't talk about it, people are probably just going to remove your work.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The content section is not advertised as "critical" or "annotated" and is sourced only to Prof. Paine. As such, a careful reader will quickly realize that it seeks to present merely a neutral, summary description of the author's work and points of view as published by Cambridge University Press. Yet for those readers who are not sophisticated, adding a qualifying "according to the author" now and again, doesn't hurt. Elfelix (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A certain amount of book summary is fine, but the current section seems (to me) slightly more than a concise summary of the book, per notplot. And language indicating a critical or value judgement ("eluded", "duplicitously") that might be disputed, must be attributed so that it's not confused with Wikipedia's own voice. That's required by npov. Attribution of contentious claims must be clear, and clear to a general reader with no special background in the material. We also don't want the article to read as a condensed version of the book itself, per nottextbook. I think there's too much right now, but I'll see if it will be condensed or re-written as the article develops. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note about the Amazon review section.

Right now the assessment is only sourced to Amazon reviews. This material needs to be removed and assessments sourced from somewhere more reliable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I took them out. If there are reviews of her work from neutral reliable sources, we should certainly put those in. Book blurbs and Amazon reviews aren't appropriate. There must be better-sourced reviews. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The quotations on the back of the dust jacket obviously were approved by editors at Cambridge University Press. Reliable, and arguably neutral (given Cambridge's own vetting standards). [Granted, citing to Amazon is better avoided; it's as accessible as Wikipedia.] The professorial quotes describe the book's foreign-language sources, and its novel coverage... hence their value. Elfelix (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blurbs chosen by the publisher (or booksellers) specifically to promote the book are by definition not neutral, even in those situations where some of the information in them is considered true. If an editor can't see what the back cover praise means in context, there is no way to know if it is being given undue weight by the publisher. To use a broadly simplified example of the issue, a reviewer could write, "This book is incorrect in most of its assumptions. It is well-written." and the book could have "It is well-written" on the back cover. This selective quotation in the interests of self-promotion happens often enough. Now, If the only reviews this book has received are found on the back cover of the book itself, then the book has notability issues. I'm not against positive reviews, as long as they are sourced to third party reliable sources and reflect a neutral point-of-view regarding how this book was received. If the book is notable, these reviews shouldn't be that hard to locate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)