Talk:Sacred Journeys

Created the article...

... with citations from (20) reputable referenced sources. Smee 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. The book was more profusely cited. I will add some others later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw at least (10) other citations I will add soon... Smee 11:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

The list of citations is massive, We should endeavor not to list them all (this is not an article on who cited this book) but to provide a good sample of cited works across the spectrum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But you just said above you were going to add more citations? Smee 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Reviews subsection would be good...

• What would be good at this point is to find the full article(s) that actually reviewed the book itself, and add that into a new subsection, "Reviews"... Smee 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, other citations from other endeavors and some reviews. Have you read the book? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but probably soon... Smee 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Interesting that you write an article about a book that you have not read... Another question, you adeed Eileen Barker cited the work, in her analysis of cults and new religious movements and the anti-cult movement since the mass murder/suicide events at Jonestown. How Baker cited the book and in which context? Same question about Richardson's, Hadden and Zablocki journal articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That information was primarily drawn from the abstracts of the articles, as well as the titles of the individual articles themselves. And yes, I find it quite fun to search out citations for new books, topics and individuals. Smee 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh my god, Smee. Are you saying that you do not have access to the sources you cite? This is a serious concern. Have you done the same in other articles about books? I dread the though! If that is the case I would suggest that you get feedback from an experienced editor that you trust such as Bishonen to give you some guidance about how to use sources, how to cite when you have not read the material yourself, and how to contribute to this project. I will correct the article, to list only the name of the author and the title, until such time in which you can gain access to the sources to verify the context of how these sources cite this book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate further. As you do not have access to these sources, and as you do not have the context in which this book was cited, you may be misleading our readers by asserting the fallacy of guilt by association. For example, when you cite Baker, you do not know in which context she cited this book. Could be that the cite refers to positive aspects of religious conversion, an aspect covered in detail by Downton, for example. You do not really know, but you chose to frame the citation on the basis of her analysis of cults and new religious movements and the anti-cult movement since the mass murder/suicide events at Jonestown. So your edit may be verifiable (Baker's book indeed is about that subject), but may be inaccurate and unverifiable as it pertains to the citing of this book. Same can be said about each and everyone of the other citations you added, about which you do not have access to the source and the context of the citing of this book. The sensible way to do this in these cases, is to name the book and author without' any extra commentary that may mislead the readers about its relevance to this book. If you have the source, a short commentary and page number will be indeed useful. I would suggest that you revise all other book articles you have created to assure that these faux de pas are addressed and corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• You do not understand, in most cases, abstracts of the works are available, and in others, free use preview portions of the works themselves are available. The citations are accurate and correct. However, if you feel the need to check them yourself and modify them, supplying blockquotes, I would have no objection to that. Smee 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

I do not think you have understood what I have said. Rather than repeat my argument, I invite you to re-read it. If you need clarifications on these concerns, please ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The citations are accurate, adequate, and to reputable referenced cited sources, which in most cases also cite the page number(s). I will research this further for you to alleviate your upset and provide relevant blockquotes within the citations themselves. Smee 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Just note that I am not upset. I raised a concern and I am happy that you have decided to address it. Just FYI, the current citations maybe accurate as for the subject of these books, but it is not accurate as for the relevance to this book. Until that time in which you find the necessary context, I would appreciate if you can simply list the title an author of the cited work only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I will work on providing you with further quotations from the actual citations. The context is accurate, but I will compromise and allow the "citecheck" tag to remain in place until I further add more info to the citations. Smee 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Not enough from my perspective, Smee. I will do that myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do that. As I have said, in most if not all of the cases I have confirmed the material via previews and the like. Please leave the citecheck in place until I can satisfy you with further information. Smee 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

• Jossi, as I am checking each of these citations further, the context is accurately given for each of the mentions. I am not sure what else I can provide you here, as the citations are accurate, the context is accurate, and in most cases I have provided the page numbers as well. I request that you provide me with individual citations/examples from the article in which you would like additional context/quotes, or some way so that you will be satisfied here. Thank you. Smee 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

You keep using editwarring as a way to impose your opinion in articles, and that is really impolite, to use your favorite term. I have presented solid arguments and concerns in a clear manner and you have failed to address these arguments on their merits.

Maybe an example with help clarify my position:

Lets assume an article on the book, Peter L. Berger's, Political Ethics and Social Change Basic Books, 1974,

To be accurate and NPOV, we need to provide the context of the citation, as follows:

• The book is cited on Myers & Rosenberg's Echoes from the Holocaust: Philosophical Reflections on a Dark Time providing information on how modern societies would not be modern without the pervasive use of "functional rationality," the thinking tool of technologists, managers, business persons, and bureaucrats.

and not

• The book is cited on Echoes from the Holocaust: Philosophical Reflections on a Dark Time, which is about the murder of six million Jewish men, women, and children during World War II was an act of such barbarity that it constitutes one of the central events of our time.

So what I am asking, is that if you want to add commentary about a citation, you need to provide a citation from the book that relates to this book, and not to the book in which this book is cited. Understand now?

The burden in on you, and not on me. See WP:V. So, unless you can provide that material, your additions are not "reliable" as you call them.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a specific example from this article on what you are complaining about. Otherwise, I do not understand, and cannot apply your examples from other articles to this one. The citations are accurate. Smee 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I did. See my last edit. All other references need to be cited in the same manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Glad you are helping out with that. Smee 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

No. Smee. That was an example. The burden is on you, not on me, as you brought up these sources without having reading them and without knowing in what context these sources cite this book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The citations are accurate, but your recent edit was helpful in providing further context, so thanks for that, it is appreciated. Any more tighter context you could provide with specific examples would be most appreciated. Smee 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I do not think that I have been ambiguous in my arguments: You need to provide page number and context for each work cited, as per the example provided. The burden is on you to do that. I will assist time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi, leaving your "citecheck" in place is a fair compromise. And the page numbers are already there in most if not all cases. Please be reasonable with this and allow the compromise of the citecheck. The citations are accurate. Smee 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

That is very poor scholarship, Smee. Having access to an on-line citations database is just the first step. You need to check these sources and find out how the book was cited. Otherwise, just list the book, author, and ISBN and let readers find that for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers of articles in journals refer to the article itself. We need the page nu,mber in which this book was cited, and its context, as per the example I added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi, please stop. It is not poor scholarship. It is standard practice to provide the page numbers for the full article cited. Smee 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Jossi, I have checked and rechecked these citations, which have page numbers provided. If you want to tighten the citations and context, that is fine, but please stop changing this to a list format. That removes work from all the citations, and they are accurate. I will put this up for RFC. Smee 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Actually, I would put this up for RFC, but I don't even know how to frame the issue for RFC. The citations are all accurate, factual and truthful. Smee 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

When you cite a quote from a book, you provide a page number for that book. Right? So, when you provide a page number for a book that cites this book, you need to provide the specific page number. In the example of Baker's you cited pp.329-346, when the page in which this book is cited (in a footnote, BTW), is on page 334. That is what WP:V is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

However with journal articles, the general accepted practice is to cite the range of page numbers of the article itself. Smee 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I have already explained this to you several times. I repeat it again once more. Please try and understand, it is not so difficult: What I am asking, is that if you want to add commentary about a citation, you need to provide a citation from the book that relates to this book, and not to the book in which this book is cited. It is irrelevant that the stuff you added is accurate (of course it is, you are citing the name of the book and what the book is about). This is an article about a book, and you have added a section about "Cited in other works". You then need not to describe what the book is about, but what, how, where and in which contect did the author of the book cited this book. If you do not have that information, then list just the book and author. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have provided page numbers, and full citations, which are accurate. The book is obviously cited within the context of the work and research done by each author. Smee 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

No Smee, I know that you are an intelligent person, so I do not buy your sudden lack of brilliance. You are not addressing my arguments. The book is cited in a manner that 'you do not know because you do not have access to the sources. You can go to your local library, get these sources and see what they say and how the book is cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please do not use such language on an article talk page. I will check out the sources in more detail over time, as I am sure others will do as well, but in the meantime the context is accurate to the actual sources cited, and the page numbers are provided. Smee 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I have said all I could, and more than I wanted to, Smee. You do not seem to be willing to address my arguments and prefer to assert your viewpoint by reverting rather than improving the article as per these arguments. That is a pity and unbecoming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have worked hard to provide citations on this article and to provide page numbers, and will work harder to provide tighter page numbers within the citations and tighter context. If you cannot see my good faith attempts at this, and hard work, that is a shame. Smee 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Excellent. Look forward to the context and the page numbers. What we have now is not context, is just a description of the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I will come back to this article in a week's time to assess progress on these citations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Review

Please do not use such a large blockquote of a review, but instead paraphrase into a small sentence or two. Thanks. Smee 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

A direct quotation is fine. In case you forgot, just check any of the book related articles that you created for some examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you forgot, you labeled "quotefarm" on many of other articles I had worked on in the past, and argued that quotes are not that great. Please paraphrase, or else I can provide a paraphrase/example of the quote if you do not wish to do it. Thanks. Smee 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

One quote does not make a quote farm. See any of the articles on books that you have created. BTW, I intend to challenge all the citations as per the challenge here in other articles on books you have created. The way you are pursuing the creation of "cited in other books" sections in book articles shows poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, that threat is silly, rude, and harrassment. Please take it back. I work very hard on article creation, the page numbers are provided, and the citations are accurate. I purposely removed myself from the Prem Rawat article in order to avoid conflict with you on that article. Please do not make threats that you will follow me around on articles that I have worked on. Smee 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

What are you saying, Smee? My interest is to having excellent articles. You are a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and I respect that. Now please respect my intentions to make articles better, encyclopedic, neutral, and accurate. That was not a threat, that was an effort to pursue that aim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please do not say that you will specifically focus on articles I have worked on or created, that is not appropriate. Thank you for saying that I am a prolific editor. Smee 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

There is no doubt you are, Smee. You have amassed a very large number of edits in a very short period of time, probably a record. But my concern is about something else: the need to have access to sources and better scholarship when writing articles about subjects you do not have direct access to the sources you use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is most interesting that you are concerned about that. But it is inappropriate for you to then say that you will focus solely on my contributions to the project, and go around complaining on articles I have contributed to, when I have done so in good faith with multiple sourced citations. That is undue harassment and undue effort on your part to research solely my contributions. Smee 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

You may have misinterpreted what I said. I will not "follow you around", Smee. My concern is that if this is the way you have created "Cited in other works" in other articles, I am challenging you on these as per the discussion here. I am sure that you want good articles as much as I do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I want good articles. In fact, most recently I have gotten some articles up to good status. But I have been careful with citations, I think it is just you that are nitpicking them a bit. Sure, I provide page ranges at times, but I am careful to provide full citations, page numbers, and make sure that the citations are reputable. I hope you can appreciate that and appreciate the work and new material I have created for this project in a relatively short amount of time, backed up to references. Smee 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I am not disputing your prolificness, Smee. But [citing sources is only one aspect of writing good articles. You know that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am curious, what is the nature of this disclosure, User:Jossi/Disclosure, as related to relevant articles? It seems this outlines a potential conflict of interest on these types of articles, and yet you continue to edit them? I am trying to word this in the most polite language, but this is confusing. Smee 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Niiice, Smee. You cannot address the arguments, so you resort to this? This article is about a book that I have on my bookslhelf and that I have read (great book actually), and I have no problems or COIs in editing it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Back cover

An editor deleted the picture of the backcover, with this edit summary:

• per WP:FAIR, only one cover [1]

I reviewed WP:FAIR, but I didn't see anything there that limits us to the use of only one cover. Is this interpretation based on an extrapolation or did I miss something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIR allows the use of cover art to depict the subject of an article. In several GA/FAR reviews the subject has come up as it relates to not abusing WP:FAIR unnecessarily. See for example this edit in response to a FARC review request ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NFCC#3A which states: 3 a.Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the relvant precedent for FAR review you are referring to is this page: [2]. In that case the reviewer appears to object to the back cover image due to a lack of worthwile content, not due to WP:FAIR restrictions. Regarding Wikipedia:NFCC#3A the need for the back cover image appears to be a judgment call rather than a policy requirement. If you'd like to make a case that it's unnecessary that would be more reasonable than asserting that it's forbidden under fair use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is you who need to make the argument for adding a back cover in contradiction with Wikipedia:NFCC#3A, and not the other way around. Do you think that it is necessary? I don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sacred Journeys/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*2 imgs (book cover), article sourced to (20) referenced citations. Smee 08:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)