Talk:The Good Book (book)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Good Book (book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 5 April 2011 by reviewer Yoenit (talk · contribs).

Atheism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Ethics / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Ethics
	Philosophy of religion

Why reverted?

Just curious -- why have two editors reverted, without an edit summary, the external link of the IP? The link looks okay to me (although it should have been put in the references section instead of its own "Links" section). When reverting something that is not obviously vandalism, please give the reason in an edit summary. Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observer review

We read: Reviews in The Observer and Private Eye satirised the book for its arbitrary rejection of religious content and the proselytising of the author. No link is given for the review in the Eye, but this is not how I read the review in the Observer. Clearly the reviewer in the latter is dissatisfied with the book, and clearly he's being humorous, but I see no satire of the book for its rejection, whether arbitrary or not, of religious context; and nothing about the proselytising of the author (if anything, the author is presented as the reverse). Am I missing something in the review? -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer review is certainly satire, though it's not clear to me that the reviewer is dissatisfied with the book -- anyone could have written that. But to say that the satire is for its "arbitrary rejection of religious content and the proselytising of the author" is sheer fabrication -- the review contains no such thing.

More broadly, it seems clear to me that the editor who wrote the criticism section has a POV agenda; so I think that everything in that section should be checked carefully. Also, the section misuses the phrase "critical review" or "critical reception" when what is meant is "negative" -- "critical" actually means "having to do with literary criticism, both pro and con". Duoduoduo (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

subject of the king smart: with opions, education, and a few lies.

Quasi (which means not real) Municipal Government (?). Operating Ultra Vires (which means with out power or authority). the sma using the word (federal) which means the same privatized at the multible states.
 the lack of the ANSI/NIST - ITL1-update 2013 required use of bimetric,eye and voice data with verification with the annnex orbiting, and non  devices for confermation of each of our identites.
 Of course the public school cirlicume government study, should includ American Jurisprudence, (remenber hey jude and dear prudence.) ya so the bettles brian washed us. 
  for our attoney General not to deal with it and have each state have their own paper printing plant (called the treasury). treasury appropreated expenditures, ( they call taxes taking our money)the government having that right if they did not violate the state and national constitution and install the municipal stautes and jails against the people. enough over load you you this time.  (religion) another time. JPC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.225.177 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Good Book (book). 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) 10:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]