This text - by a scholar - is one of the few studies about the so-called New World Order (conspiracy theory). And it has been reviewed favorably by Daniel Pipes. The publisher is a University Press. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's evidence that it exists and is reliable, not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly says this of it: [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the Review ends like this:

.... Scholarly but fluently written and free of excessive jargon,

Barkun's exploration of the conspiratorial worldview combines sociological depth with a deadpan appreciation of pop culture and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

--Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The thesis of the book is that conspiracy has replaced democracy as the main paradigm concerning political action in the thinking of the American public, according to Publishers Weekly, Book Reviews."

• User:Arthur Rubin, why have you reverted by Good faith edit by deleting the above? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not adequately sourced, and, even if it were stated there, it would be the opinion of that book reviewer, thereby of questionable reliability. It poasibly should be included below, if it were attributed, and were not in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But the opinion of the book reviewer carries greater weight at Wikipedia than your opinion, Arthur Rubin - that, according to you, the book is not notable. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And we also have the opinion of another Review which contracts your view that the book is not notable - that by Daniel Pipes: [2]

1. The opinion of a book reviewer carries greater weight than mine, but less than the actual text of the book, in the case of a book by a recognized expert. Furthermore, it's a controversial statement about the opinions of a living person, so WP:BLP comes in play.
2. Notability is not necessarily the same as real-world notability; there is little mention of book reviews in WP:NB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's sophistry, and a waste of time. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that doing anything with your edits but reverting them is a waste of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]