 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The Promotion-thing is a fun story, but if somebody who read the book would like to write a "Contents" or similar section, perhaps slightly longer, that would be a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- The TOC chapter titles do not actually seem meaningful alone, e.g. "Chapter One: A Hole in the Corner", and if someone really wanted the TOC the Amazon Look Inside has it. If you look and still think it would be better then go ahead and WP:BOLD enter the edit. Markbassett ( talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Prolog:: concerning [1], why should the opinion of Le Donne be removed? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 07:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The source is a self-published blog and therefore it can not be used to make claims about living persons (
WP:BLPSPS).
Prolog (
talk) 07:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that is really the spirit of that policy; since the claims are clearly being made to speak toward the substance of the book and are not ad hominem criticisms, but I removed any mention of Aslan anyway to comply with the letter of the policy. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 07:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Tiller54:: concerning [2], why is the source not notable such that the content should be excluded? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because he fails
WP:BLOGS. He is not an "established expert on the subject matter" and he has not "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Therefore, his blog is not acceptable as a source. As the policy also states, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." There are likely dozens of reliable reviews from newspapers, magazines, news sites etc that could be used instead.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that his previous works on the topic which were published were not by reliable publications? Why do you think he is not
asan established expert on the subject matter? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)- Because they haven't been. He's not had his work published in reliable third-party publications. So, he's just got his blog.
Tiller54 (
talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What is they, and what haven't they been? I'm asking why you think the relevant publications were not reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- He hasn't been in any "relevant publications". Why? Because he's not an established expert or particularly notable.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm still not sure what you mean. So I'm asking about his previous work which was published and why you think those very things aren't reliable, but now you seem to be saying that they don't exist at all. But that just seems so ridiculous, I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean? --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say his work "doesn't exist", I'm pointing out that, as Prolog said, the source is a self-published blog. As such, it fails
WP:BLOGS.
Tiller54 (
talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- So WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said that he has "not had his work published in reliable third party publications". I'm trying to get a sense of why you think those publications aren't reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- His work is published in large part as books, not scholarly articles. A reliable third party verification would be a scholarly article in a widely respected theological or historical journal, not an attempt to cash in on baiting book titles. A past job at a religious university and a current one in the church don't exactly help establish the lack of an agenda. Don't get me wrong, there are credible people in the church and academia who are credible, but this guy's not one of them. Rhowryn ( talk) 08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- So WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said that he has "not had his work published in reliable third party publications". I'm trying to get a sense of why you think those publications aren't reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say his work "doesn't exist", I'm pointing out that, as Prolog said, the source is a self-published blog. As such, it fails
WP:BLOGS.
Tiller54 (
talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm still not sure what you mean. So I'm asking about his previous work which was published and why you think those very things aren't reliable, but now you seem to be saying that they don't exist at all. But that just seems so ridiculous, I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean? --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- He hasn't been in any "relevant publications". Why? Because he's not an established expert or particularly notable.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What is they, and what haven't they been? I'm asking why you think the relevant publications were not reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because they haven't been. He's not had his work published in reliable third-party publications. So, he's just got his blog.
Tiller54 (
talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that his previous works on the topic which were published were not by reliable publications? Why do you think he is not
Are there really no positive reviews of this book? Crasshopper ( talk) 08:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bart Ehrman just did one, and it is negative as well. I'm till waiting on whether the Le Donne is acceptable, though. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 08:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find anything positive from professional reviews. Generally credit Fox for getting it on Best Seller ranking ... the Washington Post review and the Guardian book review or Jewish review portray it either as entertaining historical fiction in form of biography or as really bad history by a dilettante who cherry-picks for a desired outcome and muffs dates and facts. Markbassett ( talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
From the excerpts as currently presented the average wiki reader would take away that the book was universally slammed with no redeeming features save those reserved for works of children's fiction. Having read the post review, it was negative but not as negative as is potrayed here. Even the positive quotations chosen are the snarky ones. I am not wiki expert but this seems biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.113.124 ( talk) 05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The Promotion-thing is a fun story, but if somebody who read the book would like to write a "Contents" or similar section, perhaps slightly longer, that would be a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- The TOC chapter titles do not actually seem meaningful alone, e.g. "Chapter One: A Hole in the Corner", and if someone really wanted the TOC the Amazon Look Inside has it. If you look and still think it would be better then go ahead and WP:BOLD enter the edit. Markbassett ( talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Prolog:: concerning [1], why should the opinion of Le Donne be removed? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 07:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The source is a self-published blog and therefore it can not be used to make claims about living persons (
WP:BLPSPS).
Prolog (
talk) 07:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that is really the spirit of that policy; since the claims are clearly being made to speak toward the substance of the book and are not ad hominem criticisms, but I removed any mention of Aslan anyway to comply with the letter of the policy. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 07:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Tiller54:: concerning [2], why is the source not notable such that the content should be excluded? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because he fails
WP:BLOGS. He is not an "established expert on the subject matter" and he has not "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Therefore, his blog is not acceptable as a source. As the policy also states, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." There are likely dozens of reliable reviews from newspapers, magazines, news sites etc that could be used instead.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that his previous works on the topic which were published were not by reliable publications? Why do you think he is not
asan established expert on the subject matter? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)- Because they haven't been. He's not had his work published in reliable third-party publications. So, he's just got his blog.
Tiller54 (
talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What is they, and what haven't they been? I'm asking why you think the relevant publications were not reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- He hasn't been in any "relevant publications". Why? Because he's not an established expert or particularly notable.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm still not sure what you mean. So I'm asking about his previous work which was published and why you think those very things aren't reliable, but now you seem to be saying that they don't exist at all. But that just seems so ridiculous, I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean? --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say his work "doesn't exist", I'm pointing out that, as Prolog said, the source is a self-published blog. As such, it fails
WP:BLOGS.
Tiller54 (
talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- So WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said that he has "not had his work published in reliable third party publications". I'm trying to get a sense of why you think those publications aren't reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- His work is published in large part as books, not scholarly articles. A reliable third party verification would be a scholarly article in a widely respected theological or historical journal, not an attempt to cash in on baiting book titles. A past job at a religious university and a current one in the church don't exactly help establish the lack of an agenda. Don't get me wrong, there are credible people in the church and academia who are credible, but this guy's not one of them. Rhowryn ( talk) 08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- So WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said that he has "not had his work published in reliable third party publications". I'm trying to get a sense of why you think those publications aren't reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say his work "doesn't exist", I'm pointing out that, as Prolog said, the source is a self-published blog. As such, it fails
WP:BLOGS.
Tiller54 (
talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm still not sure what you mean. So I'm asking about his previous work which was published and why you think those very things aren't reliable, but now you seem to be saying that they don't exist at all. But that just seems so ridiculous, I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean? --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- He hasn't been in any "relevant publications". Why? Because he's not an established expert or particularly notable.
Tiller54 (
talk) 09:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What is they, and what haven't they been? I'm asking why you think the relevant publications were not reliable. --
Atethnekos (
Discussion,
Contributions) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because they haven't been. He's not had his work published in reliable third-party publications. So, he's just got his blog.
Tiller54 (
talk) 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that his previous works on the topic which were published were not by reliable publications? Why do you think he is not
Are there really no positive reviews of this book? Crasshopper ( talk) 08:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bart Ehrman just did one, and it is negative as well. I'm till waiting on whether the Le Donne is acceptable, though. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 08:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find anything positive from professional reviews. Generally credit Fox for getting it on Best Seller ranking ... the Washington Post review and the Guardian book review or Jewish review portray it either as entertaining historical fiction in form of biography or as really bad history by a dilettante who cherry-picks for a desired outcome and muffs dates and facts. Markbassett ( talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
From the excerpts as currently presented the average wiki reader would take away that the book was universally slammed with no redeeming features save those reserved for works of children's fiction. Having read the post review, it was negative but not as negative as is potrayed here. Even the positive quotations chosen are the snarky ones. I am not wiki expert but this seems biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.113.124 ( talk) 05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)