Talk:Disloyal: A Memoir

Index and references

Does anyone know if the book itself got an index and/or list of references?2A02:A45B:BD29:1:D0EC:F072:620F:5A84 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54070700
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/michael-cohen-book-cover/index.html
• https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/06/michael-cohen-disloyal-trump-book-ndwknd-vpx.cnn
• https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2020-08-14/donald-trump-michael-cohen-bob-woodward-book-foreword

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of content

Earlier today, there was a bullet list of notable points from the book with three items. Two of those items were removed due to lack of notability, while the third was removed due to poor sourcing. What is the notability guideline for including book content in this article? --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Numberguy6, I didn't think the first 2 bullets were problematic. I've added them back. User:Emir of Wikipedia, can you please weigh in here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What makes those 2 points notable? It just seems like 2 random points from 2 random sources have been picked to make a contents section. I am not saying that such statements should not be included, but are they 2 most notable points? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I think the claims are fair, but the sources could be better. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we could keep those sources in for the time being and use template:better source needed, instead of removing them entirely. The claims are clearly verifiable, but whether they are the most notable is a different issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The third was unsourced entirely when I removed it, not just poorly sourced. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that there have been three instances of content from the book being added but then being deemed not notable, I think there need to be guidelines established for notability. Personally, I am on page 103 of the book, out of around 400 pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberguy6 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean you are on page 103? Are you reading the book? Wikipedia is not a place to pick out quotes of what part of a book you found interesting. It is a place to write an encyclopedic article based on third-party reliable sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am reading the book myself, and I am adding relevant content as I go. I don't think that WP:OR applies here, as these are statements made by an individual, as opposed to absolute impersonal truths. --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean relevant content? Just adding random quotes is not what we do in a Wikipedia article. Maybe they could better included on something like WikiQuote or WikiSource. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The things I am adding are not direct quotes. They are instead summaries of passages. I think that there should be clearer notability guidelines for this book. --Numberguy6 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The book is notable. Not everything single written in it needs to be mentioned here though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should still add content doesn't have a secondary source (only direct quotation), but there should be talk-page consensus before adding it to the article. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What is an example of what should be added? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article might be helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)