Talk:Six Million Crucifixions

I have one remark: the critical receptions need a third-party reference, not just a link to the book's website. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What if some of those remarks in the Critical Reception section were written directly to the author by all those scholars in the field of the book, Mike? They are very relevant, very significant, but they were never published in an independent publication. Please note that some of the remarks in that section already have a third party reference. Esautomatix —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC). — Esautomatix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If they weren't published in an independent publication, then they are like e-mails and personal letters: not encyclopedic content, since they do not come from reliable sources; and they have no place here. See testimonial. And make sure that what is being termed a "third party reference" is actually a reliable source, with a neutral point of view, rather than some sort of advocacy vehicle. I've removed the testimonials, since they are not sourced. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Orange Mike. Even though it's true those comments were written by those scholars directly to the book's author, those scholars are well-known and widely respected authorities in the Holocaust-studies field. The article listed their names and academic or professional affiliations, so it was clear these were not random people. Even though these comments were not published in a journal or publication, it's hard to see how they would not be "reliable sources". Indeed, Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page states "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors", and these are respected scholars in the field most of which have several books to their credit and who no one could dispute are "reliable authors". Also, the comments about the book were written critically as a stand-alone piece, and not in passing in a letter. These were not commercial testimonials: the writers of these comments have no affiliation with the author of the book whatsoever. The same reliable sources page states that "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". Would you be more comfortable with putting those statements in a separate section, perhaps labeled something like "Peer Comments" or "Academic Reception" or something of the sort, instead of "Critical Reception" (as the latter perhaps implies publication)? I think they are important and very relevant, and it would be a shame not to use them. Lastly, I assume you can remove the reliable sources box on top of the article? Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Esautomatix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * We don't work that way. If these comments are published in reputable journals, whether as articles or reviews or commentary, then they can be quoted; but mere unpublished letters are not published reliable sources and have no place here. Used this way, no matter how reputable the scholars, these pull quotes are more in the nature of blurbs used to puff the book. The publisher can claim they got a glowing letter about this book from Pius XII; but if the letter wasn't published, it has no place here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Orange Mike. Given you already removed those unpublished statements and only left those published in reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, will you also remove the box on top of the article? Esautomatix (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note I added a greatly expanded "Critical Reception"section with an additional 10 references. Thanks. Esautomatix (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While the section is labelled "Critical Reception", what you put in was a highly promotional selection of pull quotes, acceptable possibly in a publisher's blurb but badly failing our requirements of neutral point of view (and poorly formatted besides). Don't get me wrong: I think this is an important study, and deserves attention; but that makes it all the more important that any information here must be presented in an impartial and dispassionate manner, not in a manner which leads me to suspect that you are either connected to the author or to the author's publisher. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike, I had pretty much given up on trying to make this page better after your multiple cuts. Now, many months later, someone else added a new section of new text and you also immediately cut it out. Could you or someone else help edit that section? I don't mean cutting, I mean editing, i.e. remove the "offending" sections if you feel they need to be removed, and/or change other parts as necessary? That may be more productive than just cutting whole sections they way you have been doing. I understand your point about some of those references pointing to some blog, but they don't appear to be just chit chat. The references seem to be legitimate. Some of those are magazines published on Wordpress. Not all magazines are Time or Newsweek, and not all Wikipedia articles point to Time or the Encyclopedia Britannica. And of course not all Wikipedia articles have copious references. Are you applying a double standard to this page in particular? Look at the page for another book in the exact same field as this one: Under His Very Windows. You said Six Million Crucifixions is an important study; please help to make this page better by contributing, not just indiscriminately cutting. Esautomatix (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the categories "anti-Catholicism" and "anti-Christianity". Claiming that a book that is critical of either of them is "anti" any of them is akin to claiming that an article against global warming is against factories or cars.

Removed citation and notability tags
To address the concerns about the book's notability and request for additional citations, I and others added a few citations to show that the book has been the subject of at least four published reviews (both positive and negative), one or more commentaries from scholars in the field of Holocaust studies, and one citation in another book. Thus the book meets the first notability criteria in Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

In terms of the request to provide additional citations for verification, the article now has nine independent citations, plus an extra one written by Holocaust scholar John K. Roth and published as the book's foreword. Based on all of the above I have now removed the notability and citations tags from the article. Esautomatix (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)