Talk:Imprimatur (novel)

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sunday Times

While it's true that Imprimatur was not published in Italian until 2002, it was nevertheless the subject of an article in the Sunday Times in 2001 - presumably to warm audiences to the theme. The attached link has the text if helpful: http://h2g2.com/entry/A637625 But you're right that there is a nuance in what Duffy says and so I've amended the text. Thaks for flagging.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced section and poorly-sourced rumors

When you have a five-paragraph section with nothing substantiated by a reliable secondary source except half of one sentence, you have an unreferenced section that is subject to challenge and removal. I have challenged it, therefore the onus is on the editor adding material to follow WP:V. As for rumors reported by tabloids, extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. Elizium23 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium, we know that you have a strong editing interest in articles relating to the Roman Catholic Church but I would urge you to follow the policy of neutrality with regards to articles. Regarding your argument of "exceptional claims", there is little here that is exceptional. In any case the newspaper sources are not "tabloids" but well respected UK papers - the Telegraph and the Independent. You are going to have to try harder if you want to push the argument that this section genuinely deals with "extraordinary" material and that the newspapers cited are unreliable. As to the paragraphs dealing with the content of the book, can I point out that they are simply a summary of what the book says and supported with page references where appropriate. This satisfies verifiability. There are thousands of articles that summarise books, films, plays etc in this way. The summary of the book is, in any case, supported broadly by the secondary sources - so it is hardly controversial. If you think we need a second opinion then let's look for one - but removing vast chunks of text because you are personally uncomfortable with the religious implications is not constructive. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]