| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twisted Scriptures article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Twisted Scriptures appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
OTRS received
editThe volunteer response team has received an email (ticket #2009121110046178), forwarding correspondence which:
- "...confirms that James A. Cox, Editor-in-Chief of Midwest Book Review, confirms the accuracy and citation for cite:
- Cox, James A. (January 1997). "Twisted Scriptures: A Path to Freedom from Abusive Churches". Midwest Book Review (Oregon, Wisconsin)."
The forwarded email was from James A. Cox himself.
Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cirt (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that news, but I'm unsure why anyone (including Mr. Cox) was bothered with this since no one has questioned the accuracy of this citation.PelleSmith (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- On a related note, I reposted a more general question than previously about the Midwest Book Review at the RS/N. Their credibility as independent reviewers of books is not looking so good at the moment.PelleSmith (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Coming here from the discussion at WP:RSN, I agree with Pelle that verifying the publication there is irrelevant, because the reviews in that publication do not show notability. amazon very often includes and excerpts (without exact references) reviews from a variety of sources--the actual source its reliability evaluated--it's not the worse for being reprinted in amazon, and it's no better. In this case, it's close to zero for either the opinion presented or the implications of it being reviewed there in terms of notability. I think the review should not be used here, especially since there are better sources. BTW, who is asserted to having written that particular review? Cox, as the editor? On the basis of not just my own view, but the general discussion at WP:RS, I am removing it. In fact, where the book was reviewed doesn't in general belong in the lede of an article on a book at all, unless a particular review is exceptionally important, so I am removing the other ones from the lede also (but not from the article). If you want to, think of this as a 3O. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I will think of it as a WP:3O. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Coming here from the discussion at WP:RSN, I agree with Pelle that verifying the publication there is irrelevant, because the reviews in that publication do not show notability. amazon very often includes and excerpts (without exact references) reviews from a variety of sources--the actual source its reliability evaluated--it's not the worse for being reprinted in amazon, and it's no better. In this case, it's close to zero for either the opinion presented or the implications of it being reviewed there in terms of notability. I think the review should not be used here, especially since there are better sources. BTW, who is asserted to having written that particular review? Cox, as the editor? On the basis of not just my own view, but the general discussion at WP:RS, I am removing it. In fact, where the book was reviewed doesn't in general belong in the lede of an article on a book at all, unless a particular review is exceptionally important, so I am removing the other ones from the lede also (but not from the article). If you want to, think of this as a 3O. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)