This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
This article is borderline with WP:FRINGE issues. The most predominant is that while there is a reception section, everything here is sort of praising the theory promoted, which is a fringe theory. As it has coverage I suspect this book is a notable topic, but I simply do not believe that biased coverage is all it has, and that someone doing a book review of this has challenged the notions in the book as well. If we are going to cover this book encyclopedically, we need to explore all facets. Red Phoenixtalk16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Slatersteven - I tried to punch up some of the grammar but to be honest it's a little hard for me to parse. I will try and find some scientific research on this book but to be honest it's kind of bonkers so there might not be that many scientists who will bother to debunk what amounts to a rather generic conspiracy theory. Michepman (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
SmartSE (talk·contribs), Slatersteven (talk·contribs) — I did try to do some external research into the book and what this says does seem pretty accurate as far as it goes. At least, it lined up with the descriptions of the book given on the author’s own page and on Amazon. I’m not sure how to assess its notability though. There are some citations to it in actual academic papers that I’ve seen on Semantic Scholar but I don’t know if that counts. Michepman (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the content of this page should be merged with a redirect into the F. William Engdahl page. It does not meet the requirements of WP:NBOOK. I also think that the lead of the Engdahl page should be changed from "...is an American writer based in Germany" to "...is an American conspiracy theorist based in Germany". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
You may be right: I have trouble to find reliable sources with a critical review or describing it as conspiracy theories, despite it not being a recent book. It probably does not meet WP:NBOOK and I would thus support deletion at an AfD. —PaleoNeonate – 06:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
