Talk:A Turning Point in National History

message: A few other items that would be useful on any book article:
*It's ISBN number.
*It's popularity (sales figures, best seller list status, etc.).
*It's format (hardcover/paperback).
*Number of pages.
StuRat 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other info needed

message: Since this article contains no verifiable (English) sources, I'm tempted to delete it outright.  It also contains support statements for the book with no balancing criticism.  However, I will settle for just restoring the more balanced version, for now. StuRat 08:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty Dutch editors working on the English Wikipedia who could check the source. You are suggesting that there should be no articles on non-English books in the English Wikipedia. And of course the other way around. Any book that is only published in English should not have an article in any other Wikipedia than the English one. That's absurd. Time to call in still more second opinions (in this case that would be a sixth opinion and upwards). I will now put up an rfc. DirkvdM 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about English books for which no Dutch translation or Dutch reviews exist, then I agree.  This would mean Dutch editors would have no way to verify the claims made about the book. StuRat 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And about the 'balance' thing, as you like to call it. That's been settled already at the Original Research Talk Page. If you don't provide sources that should go. Or can you find anyone to support your pov? And why didn't yo participate in that discussion then, if you disagree with what was said but still want to keep your edits in? DirkvdM 11:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now participated in that discussion.  It looks like you conveniently "forgot" to mention that all your sources are in Dutch, with no English translation available, so are unverifiable by the vast majority or Wikipedia editors. StuRat 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion there might be 'cold' now, but we'll see. Anyway, one thing that came out of that is that you need to provide sources for your comments or else delete them. You still haven't responded to that. Me forgetting to mention the book is in Dutch was indeed sloppy, but I suppose I assumed the respondents would have a look at the article, as with an rfc, since such discussions can only continue here. DirkvdM 06:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they suggested you put the "sources needed" tag on those items.  Some allowances should definitely be made for the fact that there is currently no way for me to provide sources, since that would require me to learn Dutch.  The "sources needed" tag is now on the entire article, as neither my sections nor yours can be verified by the majority of Wikipedia editors, owing to the lack of English translations.  So, again, I have no objection to my sections being deleted, so long as the remainder of the article is also deleted for the same reason, no verifiable sources. StuRat 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete article ? 

message: The summary states the "first two thirds" of the books are on changes in American foreign policy. Care to tell us what the other third is about, DirkvdM? Is the other third the topic of the second paragraph, i.e. policy recommendations? Gidonb 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to add that later, during a further expansion of that section, but never got around to it. And now it's so long ago that I'd have to start reading the bok again. The last one-third is about that the Netherlands (and Europe) should realise that the US changed from good to evil and how it should deal with the new situation. And that it's time Europe took over where the US left off. Something like that, but this is from memory, so I won't add that to the article. DirkvdM 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hold on, I already wrote that in the article. :) That's indeed the second paragraph in that section. DirkvdM 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Its first two thirds"

message: Dirk, you can't just remove the "Criticisms" section and leave only the "Support" section, that's highly unbalanced POV.  You will just have to accept the criticisms section I provided, even though it lacks sources, unless you can find someone else who can provide the needed balance with sources.   BTW, are you yourself incapable of finding any flaws with the book ?  Why don't you contribute to the criticisms section ? StuRat 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the ref desk. Any criticism can't come from us. You'd have to find a source for it. So I'll delete that bit again. Of course the support section is pov. It's van Agt's pov. And the pov of a former Dutch PM should be allowed on Wikipedia, don't you think? Imagine someone deleting Clinton-quotes with the motivation that that's just his opinion. :) DirkvdM 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced POV

message: I removed the 'proposed deletion' tag. It was added based on a google search ""A Turning Point in National History" -wikipedia". However, a google search on the Dutch title gives a fair amount of results.
I also removed the 'unsourced' tag, since the book itself is the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkvdM (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 April 2013‎
:To be fair, the correct link you must have meant to provide was this one. However, it doesn't turn up anything useful0. No reviews in major newspapers, literature magazines, or anything that suggests this book passes the notability test. As for your argument on removing the "unsourced"-tag: the book itself cannot be source to establish notability, since it counts as a primary source. We need a secondary or tertiary one. For reference: see WP:PRIMARY.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I really haven't much time now, but following your link and having a quick look through it, the 59 results are mostly book sale sites (and not all are about the book). I haven't quite followed all the other links, but the book is number 3 in a top 10, based on sales by a major bookshop in Amsterdam. And here's a lengthy review (lousy Google translation :) ). Here's a film of a lecture, also showing Van Agt, former 3fold Dutch Prime Minister, who heartily supports the book. Hardly irrelevant I'd say. DirkvdM (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid the 'proposed deletion' tag