Jump to content

Talk:Combating Cult Mind Control

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question posed to User:Jossi

[edit]

[mv from my user page]

I have created the article, Combatting Cult Mind Control, bearing in mind the essay you recommended Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. I have added a note after other articles which mention Steven Hassan, citing him as the author of this work. I only did this after I noticed that many other articles both within and without Wikipedia do so already in articles about Steven Hassan, they mention this seminal work as a sort of caveat. By the way, the book itself is referenced by over 19 other books, is a best-seller, is still in print, and is published in 7 different languages. I would hope that you would agree that the book is notable in its own right. Let me know what you think. Yours, Smeelgova 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know what you mean when you say that this is "writimg for the enemy", it is not. Nevertheless, my personal opinion is that articles on books should be left only for these main pieces of literature that are widely accepted/ considered to be highly notable. Wikipedia is not the place to list any and all books, this included. You may want to cosinder removing editorializing from the article, such as using "an instructive, non-fiction book", "value of book". Writing for the enemy would be in this case, finding a negative review of the book and adding it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, listing all the citations, is kind of strange and never used on other articles about books. Note that 19 citations is quite a poor showing anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, the article deserves a {{POV}} tag, as it is hardly a neutral article. I will leave you some space and time to fix it before adding the NPOV dispute tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented your recommendations/suggestions.
As per above:
  1. Referenced by at least 19 other books.
  2. Best-seller.
  3. Still in print.
  4. Published in 7 different languages.
  5. As a sidenote, ranked "#136,353 in Books", on Amazon.com's "sales list", and that's after being first published in 1988.

What about the above do you not agree with? How is it that you do not think that above makes this book "highly notable" ? Thanks for engaging in the more pleasant discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for leaving me some space and time to fix the article. Yours, Smeelgova 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As it stands now this article actually deserves {{Advert}}. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Referenced by at least 19 other books
Poor number of citations
  • Best-seller
Which list? New Your Times bestseller list?
  • Still in print
There are millions of books in print. That is not a measure of notability
  • Published in 7 different languages
OK
  • As a sidenote, ranked "#136,353 in Books", on Amazon.com's "sales list", and that's after being first published in 1988.
Pretty poor rank.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards

[edit]
  1. What is an acceptable number of citations in other books? (By the way, there are most likely hundreds of more citations, this is all I have at the moment, I will find more, but please give me some time.)
  2. Best-seller - The book has been cited as a best-seller in literally thousands of other websites. Leave some time for a citation to develop.
  3. Published in 7 different languages - So do you admit that this particular point is relatively noteworthy?
  4. Still in print - OK, I was merely stating it's been in print for almost 20 years and still sells very well, that is pretty notable.
  5. What is a good Amazon.com sales rank, in your opinion?

Yours, Smeelgova 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

My view, is that this article should be on AfD. Only really important books should have their own article. Check the page of great any of the authors in Category:American_philosophers or Category:American_novelists and show me how many of these author's books have an article in Wikipedia (none). You may be crossing the line here in attempting to list numerous anti-cult books, most of which are non-notable. Such books should be listed on their author's bio page and that is it. I will be placing this book on AfD soon.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I make a personal request for you to give this book article the chance to be expanded upon by other editors who are not invested in this topic? Perhaps one week or more? Yours, Smeelgova 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Not, really. I think you are making a mistake in creating these types of articles. Wikipedia is not Amazon.com ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but there currently exist many book articles on books much less noteworthy than this one. And I think I have made a good case for it. Can you please respond to the points I listed above before listing an AFD? Certainly at the very least all of these points merit waiting a bit more, as I have said above, before doing so. Thanks for the discussion. Yours, Smeelgova 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
"there currently exist many book articles on books" -- Coud you give some a few examples of such books? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you first respond to my points above, at the top of this subsection? Thanks for the warmer discussion this time around. Yours, Smeelgova 23:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
These are the wrong questions. The AfD will ask other editors to comment about if this book is notable enough to warrant its own article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but for a while there we had some good point/counter-point going that was very educational for me. Enlighten me please, can you please respond to the points above? See also Non Fiction Stubs for a whole host of different books that could go to AFD. Yours, Smeelgova 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Rewrite this article to be similar in size and tone as say A_Return_to_Love or City_of_Djinns and we may be able to avoid an AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will check out those articles and try to do so. But please give me some time, I need to take a break from this stuff. Thank you for your understanding. Yours, Smeelgova 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I have done as much as I could. I have asked other editors to give you feedback on this and the other articles on books that you have created. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, User:Jossi, I need to take a break from Wikipedia. As stated above I will comply with your suggested model article. Please allow me some time. It had seemed from your prior comment that you were going to allow me a little lattitude. I wish that you would continue engaging me in this fruitful discussion and not resort to reporting me all the time to Wikipedia Administrators. I am striving to learn and comply with your suggestions. Thank you. Smeelgova 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I did not "reported you". I have asked other editors to give you some feedback. Have a good break. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give it some time

[edit]
  • The article has been in place for all of 1 hour. Please give it some time to develop before adding any labels. It has the stub tag. I have had trouble finding reputable secondary sources which state some criticism. Please allow some time for other users who are not us, who do not have POV so heavily vested in this, to take a look. Yours, Smeelgova 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

I have re-written the article to provide an NPOV and informative description of the book. I have removed all material that read much as advertising. I would argue also that the infobox does not add much, and would be better deleted as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • I do not see what the problem is with the infobox? That seems to be a standard on book articles, and it certainly is NPOV, and doesn't take up much space or draw the reader's attention from the article. Smeelgova 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Criticism

[edit]
The notablity of the book is closely related to the author. So we can have either the content ogf this article merged with the authors' article, or we have to provide context about who the author is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is best if you want to take us to AFD on this one. I don't appreciate your reverting of all of my edits, and I personally think the material you added was highly inappropriate. The sources did not directly mention Hassan or the book. Smeelgova 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that this with Smeelgova that the criticism makes no relation to the book. Criticisms, reviews, and critiques of the books are fine, but this text should be moved to Steven Hassan. Andries 10:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I would argue that citations of a book are not to be used, in particular, as these citations may not all be an imprimatur of the author that cited the book. It may well be a critique of the book, or just a mention of a specif passage to present the point of view of the author. I have removed these accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable argument. But they do go to its notability. Yours, Smeelgova 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Not necesarily. A notable scholar will have thousands or at least hundreds of citations. See for example http://ascweb.usc.edu/pubs/faculty/SSCI%20ranking%20Communication%20Scholars%202005.pdf ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mosier

[edit]

Who is Peter Mosier? His he notable person to feature a quote of his review in this article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, it seems that the quote featured is not from Peter Mosier. See the ref ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Mr. Mosier is an ex-member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. See [1]. Hardly notable to be cited. Quote removed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please find a quote of a review published by an independent reviewer that is verifiable and published in a reliable source. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Yours, Smeelgova 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, User:Jossi, for getting a more reputable quote in there. Yours, Smeelgova 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Critical Viewpoints

[edit]

I have edited the first paragraph of this section to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.169.10.255 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Araktsu (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Barker "recommendation"? etc.

[edit]

Articles about books should not contain misleading claims of recommendation or misleading links. Scholars who take various positions on research issues often cite non-scholarly publications which take an opposing view. This should not be confused with a "recommendation," which would falsely imply endorsement of the opposing view.

The link claiming to be to the Church Times and suggesting that Eileen Barker "recommends" Combatting Cult Mind Control is a link to the book author Steven Hassan's site, and does not currently contain any reference to either the Church Times or Eileen Barker. Moreover, the WP article for Barker's book The_Making_of_a_Moonie indicates that she is an opponent of the mind control theory on which Combatting Cult Mind Control is based.

I have taken reasonable pains to locate a citable reference in which Eileen Barker "recommends" Combatting Cult Mind Control in a general sense, but have found none. If she has "concerns" about the book, those concerns should be discussed, rather than glossed over.

Other citations used in the article also turn out to be dead links to the author Steven Hassan's site. Please improve this article by making sure that links are to the publications cited, not to the book author's site, which may contain dead links or selective editing of the cited material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fencingchamp (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[edit]

Unable to verify much of the material due to dead links. One of the two reviews is from a blog and book seems to be effectively self-published by the author's own company. Checking for more sources to see if this actually passes GNG or WP:NBOOK
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL JbhTalk 14:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Combatting Cult Mind Control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Combatting Cult Mind Control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

The whole article, with the exception of the reception section, appears to be original research. There are a number of very detailed sections with no secondary sources whatsoever. The only occasional citation is to the book itself. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harold the Sheep That's how book articles are generally written. Outside of the reception/background/other sections (and quotations) the default for the contents of the book is that it doesn't need other citations except when making evaluative statements.
I mean, the summary here really needs to be cut down (this is like 3000 words of summary when the max is supposed to be like 700-1000 I think, jesus christ) but it's perfectly acceptable for it to be cited to the book itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that, but as you say, it's a very long article that essentially has no sources other than occasional nods to the book itself. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an original research issue that's a "cut down the summary" issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now taken a hatchet to the summary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Combating_Cult_Mind_Control&oldid=1229870216"