Talk:Enlightenment Now

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 articles

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources for reception/coverage

I've been trying to keep up with the coverage and reception this book has been getting. Here's a list of the sources about it I've found that aren't already cited in the article:

Review in the London Times
Interview about the book in The Weekly Standard
Review in The Conversation
Interview about the book in Scientific American
Review in Quartzy
Interview about the book in The Day
Review in the Evening Standard
Review in Harvard Magazine
Interview about the book in the Washington Post
Review in Tricycle
Summary essay in the Wall Street Journal
Interview about the book by WAMU
Summary essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education
Review in The Gazette
Listed among best books of the month by CS Monitor
There also is an interview about the book in Smashing Interviews magazine, which is on Wikipedia's URL blacklist, even though the magazine appears to satisfy WP:RS. If a consensus forms that the article should cite this source, I'll make a request that the URL be whitelisted.

I'd like to discuss which of these reviews are important enough to be cited here. I think that the review from the London Times definitely should be, but some of the other reviews I've listed are from newspapers and magazines I'm not familiar with, so I don't know how prominent they are. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softball interviews with the author aren't reliable independent secondary sources, and should be used sparingly. Most of the reviews listed seem fine, for tricycle and harvard magazine you'd need to provide some evidence that they are WP:RS that possess WP:WEIGHT.

Anyone know of a non-blog^[1] source for Stuart Pimm's position on extinctions^[2] being misrepresented in the book? -- Jeandré, 2018-03-16t12:41z

References

^ Monbiot, George (2018-03-07). "You can deny environmental calamity – until you check the facts". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-03-14.
^ De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction". Conservation Biology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 1523-1739. Retrieved 2018-03-14.

Quillette

@Aquillion: I understand that Quillette is not seen in good light in general, however I don't see why a relevant opinion about the book by them was removed [1]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[monbiot2017-1] Monbiot, George (2018-03-07). "You can deny environmental calamity – until you check the facts". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-03-14.

[2] De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction". Conservation Biology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 1523-1739. Retrieved 2018-03-14.

[1]

[2]