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.
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 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 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 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
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:
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.
... 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"
@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)
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)
The reason why I would like to exclude Hughes is because the only thing his review adds to what the other critics already said is his anti-BLM rethoric, which is politically biased. Also, I'm not sure what makes you think the Post-Gasette of all sources is reliable. We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Misplaced Pages's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
IP, you were told not to revert without discussing. As per WP:FALSEBALANCE, not every opinion is equal. You are right, it is not up to me to decide. It's up to site policy. Ben Shapiro is not a critic, he's a right wing pundit, and the Post-Gazette is a pro-trump propaganda site, not a reliable source. As per site policy, they should not be included. The other critics offer a fair and balanced take on the book and potential issues it has, so your claim to want to make the reception section more balanced is a bold-faced lie. It is you who wants to skew the article to better reflect YOUR ideological preference. I'm just here to ensure the article is more in line with site policy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@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, looks good. I've struck the original hook. 97198 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
