Talk:The New Believers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New Believers 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

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

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Arbitrary section header

This is becoming really silly. Why the spurious tags? I have used multiple sources for this article, not just primarty sources. Primary sources on an article about itself are OK, if other sources are included as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Please accept my apologies. I did not see the sources as they did not appear in the references subsection. Thank you. Smee 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies accepted. If you want to add the "unbalanced" tag, I need to know your opinion about what is unbalanced. Otherwise you keep me guessing and unable to address your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

This article is unbalanced, and needs more critical reviews and/or commentary to balance out all of the excerpted laudatory commentary. Smee 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have not found any negative reviews. If you can find any, by all means add them. An article cannot be called unbalanced if there are no reliable sources that have a critical viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree, if critical sources cannot be found, but - Why not? You have made this identical argument on pages of other books and articles in the past. To be fair, so have others opposed to certain points of view covered in certain books... Smee 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The burden to provide material about such neglected viewpoints, is on the editor making claims that there are such neglected viewpoints. When I made such claims in other articles is because I knew that there were such neglected viewpoints, I then researched and found material for balance. I invite you to do the same, or to remove the tag after a reasonable period of time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I would hope that you hold yourself to those assertions across the board - and that if you find an article in the future whose subject you do not agree with - you don't make an issue of nonexistent criticisim in the article, simply because there already is praise in that article. But I do see your points, and I will endeavour to find appropriate sources for this article and add material. Thank you. Smee 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't object if the Table of Contents stays in, but other editors have remarked to me on other articles that a Table of Contents in general doesn't look best in an encyclopedia article. Better to fill up the article with paragraph-form analysis, backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations. Just a friendly comment, take it as you like. Yours, Smee 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have no objection to remove the TOC in this case. Other articles on books that have numerous contributors, a contents outline and name of the contributor is quite useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Glad we were able to work this out in a polite manner in this case. Thank you. I appreciate that. Smee 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(ed conf)We did this in a mature way. Not much to do with "Politeness", IMO. Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and what is considered polite in one culture can often be quite rude or simply strange in another. While the goal of politeness is to make all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally defined standards at times may be manipulated to inflict shame on a designated party. From Politeness. Good manners is just 1/2 of the equation. Maturity is also needed, and an understanding that WP is a project based on collaboration and not a battleground ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may not see your comments as polite, but I did. Most certainly, there was an absence of rudeness or inappropriate comments about individual editors themselves, and I appreciate that, and for that, I thank you. Thank you . Smee 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

However, at this point, the article is just a bunch of laudatory reviews. It could use some paragraph format analysis, and citations from secondary sources. Also, the citations themselves need to be full citations, not just the dates they appeared. Smee 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Citations with date and source are more the sufficient in most cases, as it will allow readers to verify these if needed. As for additional material, sure. We shall endeavor in finding more material. For example, we can easily create a section on "Cited on other works" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the name of the author, name of the article, and page number for the citations currently in the article. And yes, you are correct, adding a "Cited on other works" section would look nice, as well as context to provide how the book is cited in the other works. Smee 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Name of author and book/journal are there. Why do we need page numbers? I will see if I can craft some context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list format does not look good, but it is a good start. If you have noticed, you will see that on some of the articles I have started, I put this type of section in a paragraph format, with <ref></ref> instead. And when I asked for the author, article name, and page numbers, I was referring to the citations in the "Reviews" section. Smee 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will work on the list over the next few days and add context. As for the reviews, the date and the publication name is good sufficient for WP:V. I will see if I can find the authors of the reviews. One I just found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date and publication name may be sufficient, but as far as I have heard (and others have also asked me for page numbers before, on multiple occassions), it is preferable to have author, article name, and page number. Smee 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, page numbers are always useful, but these are needed in particular when the material is of contentious nature. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, I have had plenty of people ask me before for page numbers, and in as many cases as I can, I try to provide as much information as I can in citations that I add to articles. At a minimum, article name, author, book, page number if available, or section name/chapter. Smee 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that is the best way to do it. I am working on providing as much info as possible for these reviews. As we have maybe too many reviews already, I will remove these until I find the author's name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that sounds like a good idea. And may I say I am quite pleased with the polite, or you would say mature, way that we are both responding to each others' comments here on the talk page. And if polite is not the right word, absence of any other, um, personally directed inappropriate comments, is always most appreciated on article talk pages. Thank you. It is appreciated. Smee 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reviews

A review or two is acceptable in articles about books. I will partially revert last edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]