Talk:Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess

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

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent edit looks like a coatrack[edit]

Imo, this edit goes against several wikipedia fundamentals. Wikipedia is not an academic journal for original reviews of books, which is essentially what that edit was. I took a look at a quick, random selection of articles on similar biographical books, and none of them were reviews or regurgitations of the contents of the book. If there is biographical information about Rigdon that this book adds, then that potentially belongs on the Sidney Rigdon article itself. The edit also fails WP:OR. Here are some examples of original research:

"The value of Van Wagoner’s biography is that it cites well-documented early sources that supplement, and frequently run counter to, the semi-official histories and characterizations of Rigdon in LDS publications. "
"There might be some hesitation in accepting Van Wagoner’s diagnosis, since he was not a psychiatrist. He was, however, an audiologist and as such would have had more training in therapeutic disciplines than most historians."
"His acceptance by the church gave him an opportunity to exercise his talents and feed the “exaggerated sense of well-being and self-confidence” that are characteristic of Bipolar Disorder."
Almost the entire "Affiliation with Joseph Smith" section,
The section "The use of prophecies to guide and rule the faithful", which is largely a WP:COATRACK for original synthesis rejected on the King Follett discourse for also violating WP:OR.

This article is about the book; the text that I have removed drifted far away from the article's nominal subject (the book itself), and instead gave more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects - the very definition of WP:COATRACK. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the edits in question are essentially reviewing the book. We need secondary sources that comment on the book, not primary references to the book itself accompanied with critiques in the style of a book review. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]