![]() | The Rage Against God has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am hardly trying to drum up sales! I'm an anti-theist, and I happen to profoundly disagree with Peter Hitchens about... pretty much everything. Neural ( talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to those who have worked on this ( sceptical editors might note that it has already attracted its first review, by Christopher Howse in the Daily Telegraph -'Taking the God out of Good', Saturday 20th March, p.29, and a mention by the columnist Mary Kenny in the 19th March edition of the 'Catholic Herald', as well as numerous comments on the web. And it was only published a week ago). But the title used here is not in fact the title of the book, in Britain or the USA. In Britain it has no subtitle at all and is 'The Rage Against God' (the US Edition will have the subtitle 'How atheism led me to faith'). I think it would be simpler, and easier for readers to find, if the basic title 'The Rage Against God', common to both editions, were used. I don't know how to amend this, and think it would be better if someone else did. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 09:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting about the title -- I wonder why no-one noticed? Have just checked on Amazon UK however and it is indeed simply The Rage Against God. Jprw ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The book is reviewed in the April issue of Standpoint Magazine by Michael Nazir Ali [1]
And referred to by Simon Hoggart in his Guardian column of 27th March [2]
Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Standpoint ref but Hoggart's mention isn't substantial enough. I wonder if Michael Gove will be reviewing the book? I seem to remember reading somewhere that he couldn't wait to read it. I suppose it's still early days. At the moment the reception section needs some critical refs for balance. Jprw ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael Gove seems to be anticipating The Rage Against God here: "I long to see him take the next stage in his writer's journey and examine, with his unsparing honesty, the rich human reality of the division he believes is now more important than the split between Left and Right — the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist. This division, the difference between between Prometheus and St Paul, the chasm that divides Shelley from T. S. Eliot, Lloyd George from Lord Salisbury, is nowhere better encapsulated than in the contrast between Hitchens major and minor. While Peter may feel that the choice between Left and Right needs proper definition, for many of us the choice between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is the truly difficult one to make". ( [3]) Presumably Gove will get round to reviewing the book at some point, and I'm thinking about mining the above quote to pad out the introduction. Jprw ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to round off the intro with the Gove quote but it may need rewording. Jprw ( talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I included the Hoggart link precisely because it is critical, though admittedly fairly brief (bear in mind that mentions of this kind in prominent columns have more impact than lengthy back-of-the-book reviews). But I'm sure it won't be the last such.
There's now a second reference in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 30th March 2010: [4] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be difficult to justify referring to Hoggart's short paragraph. But why hasn't there been made a full-blown, vituperative attack from The Guardian, I wonder? Jprw ( talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Moore ref -- it's a good high profile ref but still positive. Maybe The Observer will pitch in this weekend with a scathing attack, and do something to restore a semblance of balance? Jprw ( talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on The Real Global Warming Disaster another editor suggested this which I suggest we use as our template/guide. Jprw ( talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated advice, thank you. Jprw ( talk) 11:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A critical review, from the New Statesman online blogs: [5] Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback ( talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added the NS review. I think that in a short period the article has filled out nicely. We also have the reaction subsequent to the May 1 US publishing date to look foward to, and I wonder if C Hitchens will be reviewing it? In the meantime, if anyone has a hard copy of the book the second and third parts of the synopsis need attention. Once that gets done I'm going to nominate The Rage Against God for GA status -- probably in mid May after the US publication, but I'll need advice from other editors on how to go about this. Jprw ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A review from 'the Guardian' (17th April 2010) [6] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One small point. The Byrnes review is not from the New Statesman itself, but from the New Statesman's online blogs. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) A review from the Catholic Herald, 30th April 2010: [7] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
A review from The Independent, Friday 6th May 2010 [8] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.
Shimeru ( talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw ( talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are more Amazon.com than amazon.co.uk reviews for the book, yet a real paucity of state-side reviews in mainstream papers. This is all I've been able to come up with so far, but in terms of the book it's a bit weak. The search goes on. Jprw ( talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
For your information there is a review in the 'Weekly Standard', but it does not appear online and I'm not sure how to access it. Also, the Canadian National Post reviewed it. The NY Times mention is already in the article. It was also the subject of a lengthy item on the CBC radio programme 'Q' and of a long slot on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, syndicated in many US radio station. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added Hewitt and the Canadian National Post mentions as external links -- not sure the latter really qualifies as a review. Jprw ( talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd pass on this review, by Michael Gove in a 'Books of the Year' section in the Mail on Sunday.
'MoS books of the year, Christmas 2010 (MoS 2 5th December 2010)
Michael Gove.
"The two best-written books were Christopher Hitchens's memoirs Hitch 22 and his brother Peter's The Rage Against God . Even though the authors set the benchmark for sibling rivalry, their books prove there is something special about them. Both are restless romantics, enemies of cosy consensus, original minds - and products of an education system that wanted all children to be cultured and questioning.
Peter's book reads as if Cardinal Newman were reflecting on life after battle-scarred years as a foreign correspondent, while Christopher's book, if it were a thoroughbred horse, would be by George Orwell out of Kingsley Amis. I can think of no better pair of books for Christmas reflection." ' Clockback ( talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Peter Hitchens, logged in as 'Clockback')
The below is copied from user Ramos1990's talk page
Your edit summary: "these statements are negligible and have no citation. More info than needed" is demonstrably false. This is perfectly acceptable (indeed necessary) background information for the lead which helps create a useful summary and overview for the reader, and because of the very basic and indisputable nature of the descriptions, no citations are needed. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. Jprw ( talk) 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Copying exchange over before seeking third opnion) Jprw ( talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You continue to miss the two essential points, in a rather alarmingly obtuse fashion: 1) Your assertion: Look at GING for how a decent neutral intro looks like. If you disagree, then you would have to add that Christopher Hitchen's GING is also "polemical" on that article if you wish to avoid hypocrisy on this issue is flawed – rather, this means that the description at GING is a bit threadbare and could do with some more descriptive language, i.e. RAG is the article that is up to standard, not GING; 2) Including absolutely basic, utterly indisputable descriptions of the book and author is in no way a compromise of neutrality! Anyway I have sought the opinion of a third editor. Jprw ( talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm here from the 3O board. After looking at this, I'd generally say that it's not really necessary for those insertions to be in there. I don't have anything particularly against saying that the author is a traditionalist conservative; it could be useful, although we wikilink to his article, so it's not super necessary. Saying that the book is autobiographical and polemic, though, isn't really necessary at all. By saying that the book describes Hitchen's personal journey, we're implying that it's autobiographical, and the next sentence (which says that he's writing it in response to his brother's book) implies that it's polemical. "Polemical" to me has a negative connotation; while I don't think in this case it's intended that way, given that the word isn't providing any new information, I'd say it's best that we leave it out. "Autobiographical" is less controversial, but in the interest of brevity, I'd say leave it out here too. "Traditionalist conservative," for the record, I'm indifferent about; probably leave it in. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, your help is much appreciated:) Regards, Jprw ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The passing review has been declared invalid so I will conduct a reassessment to see if it meets the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to do the reassessment. To address the problem areas:
Re: 2: Perhaps "was reviewed extensively on both sides of the Atlantic"?
Re: 3: You are right, the synopsis is 1,200 words but WP:MoS indicates 900 as usually being sufficient. I'll have a go at paring back the material and summarizing appropriately those points gone into in what might be excessive detail.
Re: 6: a) Perhaps the American cover can be put in the release details section (but this is hardly critical and perhaps the best solution would be to delete it from the article) b) I'll have a go at rewriting the captions you flag.
I should be able to get round to doing the above in the next 24 hours. Regards, Jprw ( talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The Rage Against God has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am hardly trying to drum up sales! I'm an anti-theist, and I happen to profoundly disagree with Peter Hitchens about... pretty much everything. Neural ( talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to those who have worked on this ( sceptical editors might note that it has already attracted its first review, by Christopher Howse in the Daily Telegraph -'Taking the God out of Good', Saturday 20th March, p.29, and a mention by the columnist Mary Kenny in the 19th March edition of the 'Catholic Herald', as well as numerous comments on the web. And it was only published a week ago). But the title used here is not in fact the title of the book, in Britain or the USA. In Britain it has no subtitle at all and is 'The Rage Against God' (the US Edition will have the subtitle 'How atheism led me to faith'). I think it would be simpler, and easier for readers to find, if the basic title 'The Rage Against God', common to both editions, were used. I don't know how to amend this, and think it would be better if someone else did. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 09:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting about the title -- I wonder why no-one noticed? Have just checked on Amazon UK however and it is indeed simply The Rage Against God. Jprw ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The book is reviewed in the April issue of Standpoint Magazine by Michael Nazir Ali [1]
And referred to by Simon Hoggart in his Guardian column of 27th March [2]
Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Standpoint ref but Hoggart's mention isn't substantial enough. I wonder if Michael Gove will be reviewing the book? I seem to remember reading somewhere that he couldn't wait to read it. I suppose it's still early days. At the moment the reception section needs some critical refs for balance. Jprw ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael Gove seems to be anticipating The Rage Against God here: "I long to see him take the next stage in his writer's journey and examine, with his unsparing honesty, the rich human reality of the division he believes is now more important than the split between Left and Right — the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist. This division, the difference between between Prometheus and St Paul, the chasm that divides Shelley from T. S. Eliot, Lloyd George from Lord Salisbury, is nowhere better encapsulated than in the contrast between Hitchens major and minor. While Peter may feel that the choice between Left and Right needs proper definition, for many of us the choice between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is the truly difficult one to make". ( [3]) Presumably Gove will get round to reviewing the book at some point, and I'm thinking about mining the above quote to pad out the introduction. Jprw ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to round off the intro with the Gove quote but it may need rewording. Jprw ( talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I included the Hoggart link precisely because it is critical, though admittedly fairly brief (bear in mind that mentions of this kind in prominent columns have more impact than lengthy back-of-the-book reviews). But I'm sure it won't be the last such.
There's now a second reference in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 30th March 2010: [4] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be difficult to justify referring to Hoggart's short paragraph. But why hasn't there been made a full-blown, vituperative attack from The Guardian, I wonder? Jprw ( talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Moore ref -- it's a good high profile ref but still positive. Maybe The Observer will pitch in this weekend with a scathing attack, and do something to restore a semblance of balance? Jprw ( talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on The Real Global Warming Disaster another editor suggested this which I suggest we use as our template/guide. Jprw ( talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated advice, thank you. Jprw ( talk) 11:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A critical review, from the New Statesman online blogs: [5] Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback ( talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added the NS review. I think that in a short period the article has filled out nicely. We also have the reaction subsequent to the May 1 US publishing date to look foward to, and I wonder if C Hitchens will be reviewing it? In the meantime, if anyone has a hard copy of the book the second and third parts of the synopsis need attention. Once that gets done I'm going to nominate The Rage Against God for GA status -- probably in mid May after the US publication, but I'll need advice from other editors on how to go about this. Jprw ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A review from 'the Guardian' (17th April 2010) [6] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One small point. The Byrnes review is not from the New Statesman itself, but from the New Statesman's online blogs. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) A review from the Catholic Herald, 30th April 2010: [7] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
A review from The Independent, Friday 6th May 2010 [8] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.
Shimeru ( talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw ( talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are more Amazon.com than amazon.co.uk reviews for the book, yet a real paucity of state-side reviews in mainstream papers. This is all I've been able to come up with so far, but in terms of the book it's a bit weak. The search goes on. Jprw ( talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
For your information there is a review in the 'Weekly Standard', but it does not appear online and I'm not sure how to access it. Also, the Canadian National Post reviewed it. The NY Times mention is already in the article. It was also the subject of a lengthy item on the CBC radio programme 'Q' and of a long slot on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, syndicated in many US radio station. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added Hewitt and the Canadian National Post mentions as external links -- not sure the latter really qualifies as a review. Jprw ( talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd pass on this review, by Michael Gove in a 'Books of the Year' section in the Mail on Sunday.
'MoS books of the year, Christmas 2010 (MoS 2 5th December 2010)
Michael Gove.
"The two best-written books were Christopher Hitchens's memoirs Hitch 22 and his brother Peter's The Rage Against God . Even though the authors set the benchmark for sibling rivalry, their books prove there is something special about them. Both are restless romantics, enemies of cosy consensus, original minds - and products of an education system that wanted all children to be cultured and questioning.
Peter's book reads as if Cardinal Newman were reflecting on life after battle-scarred years as a foreign correspondent, while Christopher's book, if it were a thoroughbred horse, would be by George Orwell out of Kingsley Amis. I can think of no better pair of books for Christmas reflection." ' Clockback ( talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Peter Hitchens, logged in as 'Clockback')
The below is copied from user Ramos1990's talk page
Your edit summary: "these statements are negligible and have no citation. More info than needed" is demonstrably false. This is perfectly acceptable (indeed necessary) background information for the lead which helps create a useful summary and overview for the reader, and because of the very basic and indisputable nature of the descriptions, no citations are needed. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. Jprw ( talk) 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Copying exchange over before seeking third opnion) Jprw ( talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You continue to miss the two essential points, in a rather alarmingly obtuse fashion: 1) Your assertion: Look at GING for how a decent neutral intro looks like. If you disagree, then you would have to add that Christopher Hitchen's GING is also "polemical" on that article if you wish to avoid hypocrisy on this issue is flawed – rather, this means that the description at GING is a bit threadbare and could do with some more descriptive language, i.e. RAG is the article that is up to standard, not GING; 2) Including absolutely basic, utterly indisputable descriptions of the book and author is in no way a compromise of neutrality! Anyway I have sought the opinion of a third editor. Jprw ( talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm here from the 3O board. After looking at this, I'd generally say that it's not really necessary for those insertions to be in there. I don't have anything particularly against saying that the author is a traditionalist conservative; it could be useful, although we wikilink to his article, so it's not super necessary. Saying that the book is autobiographical and polemic, though, isn't really necessary at all. By saying that the book describes Hitchen's personal journey, we're implying that it's autobiographical, and the next sentence (which says that he's writing it in response to his brother's book) implies that it's polemical. "Polemical" to me has a negative connotation; while I don't think in this case it's intended that way, given that the word isn't providing any new information, I'd say it's best that we leave it out. "Autobiographical" is less controversial, but in the interest of brevity, I'd say leave it out here too. "Traditionalist conservative," for the record, I'm indifferent about; probably leave it in. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, your help is much appreciated:) Regards, Jprw ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The passing review has been declared invalid so I will conduct a reassessment to see if it meets the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to do the reassessment. To address the problem areas:
Re: 2: Perhaps "was reviewed extensively on both sides of the Atlantic"?
Re: 3: You are right, the synopsis is 1,200 words but WP:MoS indicates 900 as usually being sufficient. I'll have a go at paring back the material and summarizing appropriately those points gone into in what might be excessive detail.
Re: 6: a) Perhaps the American cover can be put in the release details section (but this is hardly critical and perhaps the best solution would be to delete it from the article) b) I'll have a go at rewriting the captions you flag.
I should be able to get round to doing the above in the next 24 hours. Regards, Jprw ( talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)