Misplaced Pages

Talk:How to Be an Antiracist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:01, 28 April 2021 edit74.101.92.198 (talk) →Removed unreliable criticism ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:39, 28 April 2021 edit undoBilorv (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,699 edits →Removed unreliable criticism Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	What valid criticism Hughes has is also raised by Sullivan and Kennedy, so there's really no point in including them, and Shapiro's commentary is the usual right wing punditry, that wikipedia really should've larned to ignore at this point. ] (]) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)		What valid criticism Hughes has is also raised by Sullivan and Kennedy, so there's really no point in including them, and Shapiro's commentary is the usual right wing punditry, that wikipedia really should've larned to ignore at this point. ] (]) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

	That is your opinion. Stop adding your ideological preferences all over the website. Their criticism is just as much an opinion as is the opinions of the positive reviews you seek to keep. It is not up to you to decide whose opinion is okay and whose is not. I will revert this again.		That is your opinion. Stop adding your ideological preferences all over the website. Their criticism is just as much an opinion as is the opinions of the positive reviews you seek to keep. It is not up to you to decide whose opinion is okay and whose is not. I will revert this again. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)</small>
			:] Since the default is that a source is unreliable until proven reliable, not that any opinion is equal (my opinion is worth nothing, for instance, because no editorial team has approved it), can you give a reason why this content would be included? It looks to me like both sources are reliable for opinion, and ''City Journal'' is a full-length review, so I'd include that one. The ''Post-Gazette'' piece is not a full-length review of ''How to Be an Antiracist'', like the rest of the content, so I would favour exclusion and it's particularly wrong to quote almost all of the review it gives of the book (which is rather surface-level rather than an explained criticism like Hughes's) when we don't do that for other reviews (including the ones not yet present)—see ]. — ] (''']''') 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:39, 28 April 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's June 2020 edit-a-thon.

A fact from How to Be an Antiracist appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that How to Be an Antiracist topped The New York Times Best Seller List in the Hardcover Nonfiction category after a surge in sales following the killing of George Floyd?

A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/How to Be an Antiracist.

Misplaced Pages

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that a surge in sales following the killing of George Floyd led How to Be an Antiracist to top The New York Times Best Seller List in the Hardcover Nonfiction category?~~ Source: NYT Bestseller week ending June 6 ; sales surged "Since the death of George Floyd on May 25, sales of books on race and racism have skyrocketed ... Those titles include"

Reviewed: Bail fund

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

ALT0a ... that How to Be an Antiracist topped The New York Times Best Seller List in the Hardcover Nonfiction category after a surge in sales following the killing of George Floyd?
@Bilorv: New enough, long enough, no obvious close paraphrasing, QPQ done. I suggest shuffling the wording of the hook as in ALT0a which I think flows better and has the subject at the start of the hook, but this isn't essential. Could you add citations directly following the sentences where the hook facts are mentioned, as per DYK rules? I also suggest updating the sentence "It has spent a total of 14 weeks on the list" which is now out of date by a few weeks. 97198 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I also prefer ALT0a. I've updated the bestsellers list and added more inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I've struck the original hook. 97198 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed unreliable criticism

I removed Coleman Hughes' and Ben Shapiro's criticisms of the book as they don't appear to be relevant here. Shapiro is a right wing political pundit and Hughes has some kind of agenda against BLM, which indicates that their "criticism" is politically motivated and not at all connected to the merits of the book. What valid criticism Hughes has is also raised by Sullivan and Kennedy, so there's really no point in including them, and Shapiro's commentary is the usual right wing punditry, that wikipedia really should've larned to ignore at this point. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Stop adding your ideological preferences all over the website. Their criticism is just as much an opinion as is the opinions of the positive reviews you seek to keep. It is not up to you to decide whose opinion is okay and whose is not. I will revert this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.92.198 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor. Since the default is that a source is unreliable until proven reliable, not that any opinion is equal (my opinion is worth nothing, for instance, because no editorial team has approved it), can you give a reason why this content would be included? It looks to me like both sources are reliable for opinion, and City Journal is a full-length review, so I'd include that one. The Post-Gazette piece is not a full-length review of How to Be an Antiracist, like the rest of the content, so I would favour exclusion and it's particularly wrong to quote almost all of the review it gives of the book (which is rather surface-level rather than an explained criticism like Hughes's) when we don't do that for other reviews (including the ones not yet present)—see WP:DUE. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)