| Revision as of 04:00, 18 December 2009 editDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →OTRS received← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:38, 28 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,840,100 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WikiProject Books}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|1 = |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books|needs-infobox=No}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{DYK talk|20 September|2009|... that prior to writing the book ''''']''''', Mary Alice Chrnalogar had belonged to the religious group ]?}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
| Line 6: |
Line 13: |
|
|archive = Talk:Twisted Scriptures/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Twisted Scriptures/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
| ⚫ |
|1 = {{WikiProject Psychology|class=Start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WPBooks|class=Start|importance=Low|needs-infobox=No}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WPReligion|class=Start|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{dyktalk|20 September|2009|{{*mp}}... that prior to writing the book ''''']''''', Mary Alice Chrnalogar had belonged to the religious group ]?}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Note == |
|
|
|
|
|
Will have another source, '']'' (), just want to track down full cite. ''']''' (]) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notability == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this book meet ]? It clearly fails 2-5, but does it meet #1? (copied from policy page) |
|
|
# The book has been the subject<ref name="subject">The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.</ref> of multiple, non-trivial<ref name="nontrivial"/> published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,<ref name="independent"/> with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to ]. |
|
|
#* The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.<ref name="selfpromotion"/> |
|
|
I see a book review from ''What Magazine'' (??), and two mentions (possibly reviews?) in small news papers in Indiana and Nebraska. Can someone confirm that the treatment in the small news papers is non-trivial, and what is ''What Magazine''?] (]) 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
:I will do some more research. ''']''' (]) 08:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::See also '']'' (). ''']''' (]) 08:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Use of sources== |
|
|
|
|
|
This regards the following: |
|
|
*Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information."<ref name="wong">{{cite journal | last =Wong | first =Catherine | title =St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable? | journal =The Catholic Lawyer | volume =39 Catholic Law | issue =81 | publisher =The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law | date =Summer / Fall, 1999 }}</ref> She cites mind control characteristics identified by ], and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.<ref name="wong" /> |
|
|
Wong does not discuss this book in her law article but quotes Chrnalogar and Delgado '''in a footnote''' to exemplify the fact that "he efficacy of deprogramming is based on the assumption that cult members are unwitting victims of brainwashing and mind control." Since when do we quote footnotes like this in our entries? Chrnalogar's mention in Wong is basically as a speck in the sea of deprogramming and anti-cult activity.] (]) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have a PDF of this article and am happy to share it in case someone wants verification.] (]) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::The source confirms specifically what is said in the article, per ]. Generally I always try to use ''secondary'' sources to summarize books' contents in the ''Contents'' section, as was done here, as opposed to ] summary myself. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are using a footnote and not indicating such. I'm questioning the very use of material from a footnote in the first place. The net effect here is that the manner this is presented makes it seem like Wong is discussing this book in her article when she is not.] (]) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Discussion at RS/N |
|
|
|
|
|
I left some questions about sourcing matters at the RS/N. See ]. I hope some outside opinions can help clarify these matters.] (]) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I added more info to the cite. I noted that it is in a footnote. I added the number of the footnote. I added the full quote from the source. Cheers, ''']''' (]) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is still odd to use the footnote in this way and gives an appearance of more notable coverage of the topic than there is in actuality. I hope someone at the RS/N can clarify this some more.] (]) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is no longer odd. This has been made clear by the edit to the citation. It now clearly identifies it as coming from a footnote. ''']''' (]) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Quotebox == |
|
|
|
|
|
The quotebox from the ''Reception'' section of this article was removed. Rather than just revert, I would like to invite suggestions for a replacement quote for the quotebox that would better suit this subsection, especially from the removing editor. ''']''' (]) 09:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Suggest '''not replacing it'''. Frankly I don't see the utility of such boxes on any entry, but certainly not in controversial areas. Who decides what quote goes in the quote box? Even if the subject is relatively neutral there can be no clear choice of quotes to highlight in a box. Compare this publisher selected blurbs on the back of the book in this case. I should note that one such blurb is in the entry, which I do not find appropriate either. If the actual review cannot be found we cannot quote the publisher's cherry picked quote from Amazon.] (]) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::http://www.midwestbookreview.com/index.html - They specifically note that their reviews are available through Amazon.com, verifying the reliability of that source. ''']''' (]) 14:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Reliability is not the issue. Does anyone question the accuracy of quoted text on a book back or amazon page? No. The point is that these materials are being used, explicitly, ''as marketing materials'' by publishers and booksellers (e.g. Amazon). If this book review is independently published and available in its original form the matter is different altogether.] (]) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Leaders of many religious groups (even including several mainstream churches) are twisting the Scriptures to subtly coerce cooperation from their members. In the process, personalities are changed and lives ruined. Mary Alice Chrnalogar is a deprogrammer with an international reputation. Chrnalogar reveals how classic mind control techniques are used to systematically seduce followers into total obedience. Twisted Scriptures: A Path To Freedom From Abusive Churches shows readers how to tell when churches are suppressing freedom of speech, intimidating followers, and distorting the Bible. Twisted Scriptures is invaluable as a self-help guide and as a tool for families and friends to free loved ones from destructive groups." -- Are you doubting the authenticity of this text as being from '']'' ? ''']''' (]) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''I am not doubting the "authenticity".''' Please see this and the RS/N discussion. I would not question the "authenticity" of a publisher picked blurb on a dust jacket either, but that is entirely besides the point. The point is that this, like those blurbs, is being used for marketing purposes by a book seller. We don't use publisher or book seller advertising in our entries. Are you disputing that? Find the actual review, as published outside of Amazon.com's marketing goals.] (]) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So because someone quoted from a review on a website that sells the book, this means we should never use sources that then happen to be quoted on websites that sell those products? ''']''' (]) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As far as I know, based on similar discussions in the past (e.g. book blurbs) one cannot use it ''as quoted'' on the website promoting the product (or book jacket) as opposed to in the context of its independent publication. Of course the reason I posted at the RS/N was to get further input on that issue.] (]) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of sourced info by Weaponbb7 == |
|
|
|
|
|
- please do not remove sourced info under the guise of a nonspecific edit summary. ''']''' (]) 14:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More source issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding this text: |
|
|
*''Twisted Scriptures'' is used as a reference in books including the ] book ''Promoting a Safe Church: Policy for Safeguarding Adults in the Church of England'',<ref>{{cite book | last =] | title =Promoting a Safe Church: Policy for Safeguarding Adults in the Church of England | publisher =Church House Publishing | year =2006 | page =Notes | isbn = 0715141090}}</ref> ''American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America'' published by ],<ref>{{cite book | last =Hedges | first =Chris | title =American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America | publisher =] | year =2006 | page =224 | isbn =0743284437 }}</ref> and ''Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community'' published by ].<ref>{{cite book | last =Strom | first =Mark | title =Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community | publisher =] | year =2000 | page =246 | isbn =0830815708 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Cirt have you actually looked at these books? I am trying really hard here to AGF, but this looks an awful lot like the results of a google books search, which means only seeing the same limited previews I just saw -- and they do not in anyway clarify how or why the book is listed in these texts. What seems to give it away, if I'm correct about this, is that in the first reference read "notes" for the page. Googlebooks supplies the page numbers for the second two references but not the first. Clearly there is no page called "notes". If we do not know anything past the fact that the book is supposedly listed in these other texts via what is available on google books -- see for e.g. , then it should not be included as if it has actually been verified. If I've misrepresented what you did then my apologies, but this looks like drive by notability stacking to me. There are some serious questions about the sources being used here and stuff like this just makes it worse.] (]) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:The book is listed as either a direct reference or resource in those sources. ''']''' (]) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Direct reference '''or''' resource"? Your text states that it is used as a "reference" specifically. Are you saying you do not actually know this for a fact? Can you please answer my related question above regarding whether or not what is written has been verified outside of something deduced via googlebooks limited preview?] (]) 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In that particular book it is used as a reference. I have access to the book. I have provided the page number. ''']''' (]) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Three''' books are listed. You mean the first one? What is being footnoted? You don't have access to the other books?] (]) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::1) It is used as a reference in all of the cited books. 2) That was in reference to ''Promoting a Safe Church''. 3) The book itself is the reference noted in the footnote. 4) I have access to all the books. ''']''' (]) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So it is not a "resource" in any of them? Why did you write "The book is listed as either a direct reference or resource in those sources"?] (]) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It is not a "resource" in any of them. It is a reference, in all of them. My above comment was not clear enough, sorry. ''']''' (]) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Huh? Why on earth would someone know the actual answer but make it sound like they didn't by listing two possibilities? If you ''now'' say you have access to the books I'll take your word for it, but please make sure you verify information ''before'' putting it into the entry.] (]) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I had the books. I have the books. I commented incorrectly above, as I already said. I did verify the info before putting it into the entry. ''']''' (]) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Fine.] (]) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Thank you. :) Cheers, ''']''' (]) 19:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== OTRS received == |
|
== OTRS received == |
| Line 86: |
Line 24: |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
Thanks, |
|
<font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 10:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
<span style="font-family:Arial;"> ] (])</span> 10:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
:Thank you, ''']''' (]) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
:Thank you, ''']''' (]) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| Line 93: |
Line 31: |
|
:::On a related note, I reposted a more general question than previously about the Midwest Book Review at the . Their credibility as independent reviewers of books is not looking so good at the moment.] (]) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
:::On a related note, I reposted a more general question than previously about the Midwest Book Review at the . Their credibility as independent reviewers of books is not looking so good at the moment.] (]) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Coming here from the discussion at WP:RSN, I agree with Pelle that verifying the publication there is irrelevant, because the reviews in that publication do not show notability. amazon very often includes and excerpts (without exact references) reviews from a variety of sources--the actual source its reliability evaluated--it's not the worse for being reprinted in amazon, and it's no better. In this case, it's close to zero for either the opinion presented or the implications of it being reviewed there in terms of notability. I think the review should not be used here, especially since there are better sources. BTW, who is asserted to having written that particular review? Cox, as the editor? On the basis of not just my own view, but the general discussion at WP:RS, I am removing it. In fact, where the book was reviewed doesn't in general belong in the lede of an article on a book at all, unless a particular review is exceptionally important, so I am removing the other ones from the lede also (but not from the article). If you want to, think of this as a 3O. ''']''' (]) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
::::Coming here from the discussion at WP:RSN, I agree with Pelle that verifying the publication there is irrelevant, because the reviews in that publication do not show notability. amazon very often includes and excerpts (without exact references) reviews from a variety of sources--the actual source its reliability evaluated--it's not the worse for being reprinted in amazon, and it's no better. In this case, it's close to zero for either the opinion presented or the implications of it being reviewed there in terms of notability. I think the review should not be used here, especially since there are better sources. BTW, who is asserted to having written that particular review? Cox, as the editor? On the basis of not just my own view, but the general discussion at WP:RS, I am removing it. In fact, where the book was reviewed doesn't in general belong in the lede of an article on a book at all, unless a particular review is exceptionally important, so I am removing the other ones from the lede also (but not from the article). If you want to, think of this as a 3O. ''']''' (]) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::::Okay, I will think of it as a ]. Thank you, ''']''' (]) 14:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
The forwarded email was from James A. Cox himself.
