Talk:Twisted Scriptures/Archive 1

Note
Will have another source, Midwest Book Review (see review), just want to track down full cite. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Does this book meet WP:BK? It clearly fails 2-5, but does it meet #1? (copied from policy page) I see a book review from What Magazine (??), and two mentions (possibly reviews?) in small news papers in Indiana and Nebraska. Can someone confirm that the treatment in the small news papers is non-trivial, and what is What Magazine?PelleSmith (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
 * 2) * The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * I will do some more research. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Midwest Book Review (see review). Cirt (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of sources
This regards the following: Wong does not discuss this book in her law article but quotes Chrnalogar and Delgado in a footnote to exemplify the fact that "[t]he efficacy of deprogramming is based on the assumption that cult members are unwitting victims of brainwashing and mind control." Since when do we quote footnotes like this in our entries? Chrnalogar's mention in Wong is basically as a speck in the sea of deprogramming and anti-cult activity.PelleSmith (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information." She cites mind control characteristics identified by Robert Jay Lifton, and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.
 * I have a PDF of this article and am happy to share it in case someone wants verification.PelleSmith (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source confirms specifically what is said in the article, per WP:V. Generally I always try to use secondary sources to summarize books' contents in the Contents section, as was done here, as opposed to WP:OR summary myself. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using a footnote and not indicating such. I'm questioning the very use of material from a footnote in the first place.  The net effect here is that the manner this is presented makes it seem like Wong is discussing this book in her article when she is not.PelleSmith (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion at RS/N

I left some questions about sourcing matters at the RS/N. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I hope some outside opinions can help clarify these matters.PelleSmith (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added more info to the cite. I noted that it is in a footnote. I added the number of the footnote. I added the full quote from the source. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still odd to use the footnote in this way and gives an appearance of more notable coverage of the topic than there is in actuality. I hope someone at the RS/N can clarify this some more.PelleSmith (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no longer odd. This has been made clear by the edit to the citation. It now clearly identifies it as coming from a footnote. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotebox
The quotebox from the Reception section of this article was removed. Rather than just revert, I would like to invite suggestions for a replacement quote for the quotebox that would better suit this subsection, especially from the removing editor. Cirt (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest not replacing it. Frankly I don't see the utility of such boxes on any entry, but certainly not in controversial areas.  Who decides what quote goes in the quote box?  Even if the subject is relatively neutral there can be no clear choice of quotes to highlight in a box.  Compare this publisher selected blurbs on the back of the book in this case.  I should note that one such blurb is in the entry, which I do not find appropriate either.  If the actual review cannot be found we cannot quote the publisher's cherry picked quote from Amazon.PelleSmith (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.midwestbookreview.com/index.html - They specifically note that their reviews are available through Amazon.com, verifying the reliability of that source. Cirt (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not the issue. Does anyone question the accuracy of quoted text on a book back or amazon page?  No.  The point is that these materials are being used, explicitly, as marketing materials by publishers and booksellers (e.g. Amazon).  If this book review is independently published and available in its original form the matter is different altogether.PelleSmith (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Leaders of many religious groups (even including several mainstream churches) are twisting the Scriptures to subtly coerce cooperation from their members. In the process, personalities are changed and lives ruined. Mary Alice Chrnalogar is a deprogrammer with an international reputation. Chrnalogar reveals how classic mind control techniques are used to systematically seduce followers into total obedience. Twisted Scriptures: A Path To Freedom From Abusive Churches shows readers how to tell when churches are suppressing freedom of speech, intimidating followers, and distorting the Bible. Twisted Scriptures is invaluable as a self-help guide and as a tool for families and friends to free loved ones from destructive groups." -- Are you doubting the authenticity of this text as being from Midwest Book Review ? Cirt (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting the "authenticity". Please see this and the RS/N discussion.  I would not question the "authenticity" of a publisher picked blurb on a dust jacket either, but that is entirely besides the point.  The point is that this, like those blurbs, is being used for marketing purposes by a book seller.  We don't use publisher or book seller advertising in our entries.  Are you disputing that?  Find the actual review, as published outside of Amazon.com's marketing goals.PelleSmith (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So because someone quoted from a review on a website that sells the book, this means we should never use sources that then happen to be quoted on websites that sell those products? Cirt (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, based on similar discussions in the past (e.g. book blurbs) one cannot use it as quoted on the website promoting the product (or book jacket) as opposed to in the context of its independent publication. Of course the reason I posted at the RS/N was to get further input on that issue.PelleSmith (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by Weaponbb7
- please do not remove sourced info under the guise of a nonspecific edit summary. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

More source issues
Regarding this text:
 * Twisted Scriptures is used as a reference in books including the House of Bishops book Promoting a Safe Church: Policy for Safeguarding Adults in the Church of England, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America published by Free Press, and Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community published by Inter-Varsity Press.

Cirt have you actually looked at these books? I am trying really hard here to AGF, but this looks an awful lot like the results of a google books search, which means only seeing the same limited previews I just saw -- and they do not in anyway clarify how or why the book is listed in these texts. What seems to give it away, if I'm correct about this, is that in the first reference read "notes" for the page. Googlebooks supplies the page numbers for the second two references but not the first. Clearly there is no page called "notes". If we do not know anything past the fact that the book is supposedly listed in these other texts via what is available on google books -- see for e.g., then it should not be included as if it has actually been verified. If I've misrepresented what you did then my apologies, but this looks like drive by notability stacking to me. There are some serious questions about the sources being used here and stuff like this just makes it worse.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is listed as either a direct reference or resource in those sources. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Direct reference or resource"? Your text states that it is used as a "reference" specifically.  Are you saying you do not actually know this for a fact?  Can you please answer my related question above regarding whether or not what is written has been verified outside of something deduced via googlebooks limited preview?PelleSmith (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that particular book it is used as a reference. I have access to the book. I have provided the page number. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three' books are listed. You mean the first one?  What is being footnoted?  You don't have access to the other books?PelleSmith (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is used as a reference in all of the cited books. 2) That was in reference to Promoting a Safe Church. 3) The book itself is the reference noted in the footnote. 4) I have access to all the books. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is not a "resource" in any of them? Why did you write "The book is listed as either a direct reference or resource in those sources"?PelleSmith (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a "resource" in any of them. It is a reference, in all of them. My above comment was not clear enough, sorry. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh?  Why on earth would someone know the actual answer but make it sound like they didn't by listing two possibilities?    If you now say you have access to the books I'll take your word for it, but please make sure you verify information before putting it into the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the books. I have the books. I commented incorrectly above, as I already said. I did verify the info before putting it into the entry. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine.PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)