Talk:Losing Our Religion

Copy-violation tag

I removed the Copy-violation tag, because the main article editor has solved that problem. Note that the article does not yet show, with reliable secondary sources, why the book is notable per WP:Notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post review of Cupp's latest book

Steven Levingston, nonfiction editor of the Washington Post, has published a review of Losing Our Religion on the Post's Political Bookworm blog. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of info about Cupp's Young Turks Interview

I feel as if the inclusion of this information in the introduction is not only misplaced, but also probably the result of antipathy. Regardless of the reason, it's to specific to rightfully fit into the introduction. For these reasons, I am removing it. If it belongs anywhere at all, it's under a section about controversy, which I will not be creating. Fourthcourse (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. I don't think it belonged in the article. Unless she made a very notable comment it shouldn't be included.Racingstripes (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted -- again

The only thing that may possibly be salvagable is the Washington Post book review, however that might more properly belong in an article about the book itself, not necessarily about her. Blogs are not reliable sources, and YouTube videos cannot be used to support your own suppositions about the strengths of her beliefs. — e. ripley\^talk 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a recurring problem, I'll take a minute to deconstruct the edit that I just reverted. I'll take it source-by-source.

My first comment is that it's generally inappropriate (and also just plain bad writing) to have an entire section labeled "criticism." Any valid, properly sourced criticisms should be folded into the general narrative of the article itself. To the rest:

• S.E. Cupp has generated significant criticism from the atheist/skeptical/rationalist community online, many remaining skeptical of her self-described atheism, backed up by [1].

The first problem with this text is that it raises blog commentary ("the [...] community online") to the level of something a Wikipedia article should note, which is problematic on its face. Secondly, it suggests that there has been "significant" furor over this, but is only supported by one reference. The reference used here is a blog, which rarely meets our policies for reliable sources even in the best of cases, and I see nothing anywhere on this blog to indicate that this person (whoever he is) is particularly qualified to comment on S. E. Cupp, atheism, religion or anything else for the purposes of sourcing a Wikipedia article.

• Some have pointed out contradictions in her views on atheism as evidence for doubting whether or not she believes in God. During an interview with Luke Ford she claims when asked to recall what she cherished about religion “I loved a lot. I loved the belonging. I’m a consummate fan; whether it’s with the Mets or with a religion, I really like to be a cheerleader, a supporter. I get really into it. I was really turned on by that sense of group identity. You’re one of us.” as well as Then minutes later when answering a different question S.E. Cupp claims that "In part, I became an atheist became I’m not really a big joiner." Both are backed up by [2]

Setting aside the very open question of whether this interviewer's views are important or informed enough to consider his opinions a reliable source, this source does not support the text above. In this interview, he never suggests or infers any kind of contradictions in her views. This represents an editor's personal interpretation of her answers, which violates Wikipedia's policies on original research.

• The central thesis of her book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity has also been criticized for lacking substantiation and credibility. backed up by url = [3]

"The Young Turks" appears to be a podcast and possibly a satellite radio show. I didn't watch the interview, but regardless of what they may or may not have said, they don't appear to meet the standards for a reliable source.

• She has been conclusively shown to have misrepresented at least some of the examples she uses in the book to support the idea that a liberal media exists and/or such media attacks Christianity backed up by [4]

This YouTube commentary is made by someone named "LiberalViewer" who appears to be an attorney [5]. Again, I see no evidence that this person is particularly qualified to comment on S. E. Cupp or her views, or religion or atheism for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, therefore he does not meet our standards for what constitutes a reliable source.

• An Article on The Washington Post heavily criticizes her views on Evolution. Stating that "S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology and dismisses the deeply held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture." backed up by [6]

There may be some salvageable information in here, however it's not really properly attributed. This is a book review published in the Washington Post, written by Joshua Rosenau, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education. Any views taken from this article should be attributed to him, not to the Washington Post as an entity. Additionally, as I mentioned above, I'm not sure that this is a criticism of her, as much as it is of her book. Editors would need to decide whether it's appropriate for inclusion as a criticism of her in this article, or whether it should properly be located inside an article about the book specifically.

— e. ripley\^talk 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you had to revert the changes, that's my bad. thank you. Could you please advise however on how to create an appropriate "critical reception" or "criticism" or "public reaction" type of section because I really think it's noteworthy to record the impact and backlash S.E. Cupp has made with her book and statements in interviews. Blogs, video submissions and comments make up the bulk of what constitutes a "public reaction" in the online communities but as you point out these are inadmissible as sources. Friendlyanon

First, thank you for coming to talk about this. I personally really appreciate it and the article can only benefit from these kinds of interactions. Second, there should really never be an entire section about "criticism," which I mentioned above. Valid criticism should be worked into the narrative of the article where appropriate. But first, what you need are reliable sources that mention criticism. These are typically secondary published sources like the New York Times, National Review, etc. If criticism of her has not reached the level of being mentioned in these types of sources, then we won't be able to include it here, typically. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that record criticism of her? Note that I am not opposed to including criticism generally but it must follow Wikipedia's rules on sourcing. This is true of any article, but it's particularly important to be strict about it in a biography of a living person. — e. ripley\^talk 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that the article on Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity be merged into this page. This is because the book does not appear to meet the notability guidelines found in Wikipedia:Notability (books). The book was not (from the guidelines) "the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." The book's article sites 2 outside sources--one, from the Washington Post, is legitimate and helpful, but the other is to a self-published site that specifically reviews pop culture from a Christian perspective (i.e., not serving a "general audience"). The book also meets none of the other criteria for being notable (hasn't won awards, isn't widely taught in schools, Cupp herself is not such a renowned author that all of her books are automatically notable, etc.). As such, I propose that we summarize and merge the relevant content into this article (our target would probably be 1 to 2 paragraphs in this article), and redirect that article to here. Anyone else with an opinion on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the book isn't particularly significant, certainly not enough to meet our standards, and as such would not be opposed to a merge. — e. ripley\^talk 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think we should expand the article about the book rather than merging both on them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do any WP:RS that could be used to expand the book article even exist? — e. ripley\^talk

I couldn't find any, but perhaps The Egyptian Liberal knows of some. But, just to clarify--I'm not saying that the article isn't well enough written--I'm saying (as E. Ripley implies) that it cannot, by definition, ever be well enough written, because the book is simply not notable enough to have its own article. Adding more summary info, more quotes, more anything is not enough. The only thing that we can "expand" is the evidence that the book has been discussed in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think e. ripley is more than qualified to find WP:RS and add them to the article. I honestly has been super busy lately with school so even if I could find reliable sources, I wont have time to edit the page and add them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Without reliable sources attesting to the books notability, I believe that we should merge the relevant information and redirect the book here. Unless I see sources establishing notability (and, again, I looked and couldn't find any), I will merge. 07:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched through about the first 10 pages of Google results, and came up with this. These are actual discussions of the book or the subject of the book, as opposed to an appearance somewhere that mentions in passing that she's authored the book:

Appearances in various outlets when her book was first released (book tour stuff):

• Discussion with Hannity on Fox News
• Newsweek book review,
• Imus appearance,
• The Post review that's already linked in the article.

IMO this is pretty standard fare for book-related appearances and doesn't particularly testify to the book's notability in any enduring sense, but it is better than, say, the coverage an X for Dummies might get. Also, as an aside, the burden of proof was on The Egyptian Liberal to come up with these, frankly, so I'm not sure how it suddenly became my job, but in any case, this was what I found. — e. ripley\^talk 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. I have no idea why they didn't turn up when I ran research checks. I think that those are enough to establish that the book meets the guidelines in WP: Notability (books). I only skimmed the articles so far, so I don't have enough info to add really useful details to the article, so I'll just add 1 sentence now so that the references are there, and I'll delete the merge discussion tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotes?

The quote section is ridiculous. It shouldn't be in the article unless those quotes are put into context and are integrated into the text. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. WP:NOT says in part, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." So ideally the quotes here should be copied over to Wikiquote (I don't know anything about their notability/inclusion guidelines, though), then a "sister link" be set up in the EL section. Feel free to do that if you have time; I'll add it to my long term to do list, but I don't expect I'll get to it in the next few weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)