Talk:The Secret Magdalene

Neutrality
This whole article seems to have been written by a single person, and that person seems to lack any distance from the book. Parts of the bookverse, for example, are presented as facts (as in the Damaskus=Qumran bit, to mention just one occurance). On the whole, the article is a lenghty promotional bit, not an article about the book. (Which does sound interesting, BTW.) Some other person who actually read the book need to do some serious work on this article. And I'll take that third person's contribution a lot more serious if they have actually done some work in WP before, and not just on a few article most of which, if not all. are related to the contents of this book. -- John Smythe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read and loved this book, which I can't think of as "low importance" at all, unless the criteria is fleeting popularity, I've tried to edit this article along the usual lines accorded works of literature. I don't think it needs "serious" work done on it, but I can see what you mean by distance. If you still disagree, retag it. Maybe someone else can do better. JiggeryPokery (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this tagged again? I've read quite a few movie and book entries and this is better than most.76.166.237.207 (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with last two contributors. What's the problem? SageWhisper (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neutrality is a problem this article looks like promotion of this book. AS for importance rating: liking or loving a book personally doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia standards and its rating. The article isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, and the sources are not very reliable, mostly some private websites by new age persons.If this book was of such great importance, please include some articles from press and sources which is more independent. The last reference doesn't say the movie rights were bought, or that the movie is in pre-production stage.As for popularity, is ranking almost 400,000 on amazon. There are many theories about Mary Magdalene, strongly promoted. But wikipedia is not a promotional website, is an encyclopedia,and as such shouldn't serve for promotional purposes.I agree with the first poster, the articles has serious problems, still. I agree that this article needs to be rewritten by an independed reviewer.--Bialosz (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)