Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of images

I removed the images of the Sirens and Anne Curtis from the article. I was confused by their addition and almost offended by the distraction. An image must contribute to one's understanding of the subject matter. In the case of Ulysses, Ludy mentioned the analogy for no more than 1/100 of the book, I'm sure. It's a blurb and this artist's work is ultimately unconnected with When God Writes Your Love Story. Similarly, the photo of Anne Curtis is completely unnecessary. Per WP:IRELEV, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Neither of these images were so. Feel free to debate. American Eagle (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The images seem quite clearly relevant to the article. What makes them offensive? The concept of the "sweeter song", which Ludy gets from the story of the Sirens, is central to the book. Similarly, an endorsement by a famous person is noteworthy when discussing the book. These images are no less related to the subject of this article than are the images on many featured articles to the subjects of those articles. The images should be reinstated. Neelix (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I said "offended by the distraction". I came to the article to see how it had progressed (great introduction!), and was bothered by the additions. It is my opinion that neither images belong, but for completely separate reasons:
  • "Sweeter song": In a nutshell, this book references a concept that is based on fictional characters that are used in a famous poem, and therefore, H.J. Draper's (an unrelated artist) representation of these characters belongs in the article for this book? Does that sound logical to you?
  • Anne Curtis: Oh, I absolutely agree that an endorsement of a notable person is noteworthy for this article. That's unquestionable. However, is their photograph relevant? Does Roger Ebert's face belong on every film article that he's recommended? Obviously not. What makes Anne Curtis different?
It seems as if you are trying very hard to make the article aesthetically appealing, even at the risk of failing WP:IRELEV. You could always use a picture of Eric Ludy. American Eagle (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I have never encountered such an extreme view of what constitutes WP:IRELEV as what you are suggesting. As I stated earlier, there are plenty of images on featured articles that relate to their subject matter in very similar ways to the images we are discussing on this article. Consider the photograph of the Gestapo on The Adventures of Tintin, the painting of Adam and Eve on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and the photograph of Neil Gaiman on Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. All of these are featured articles. The painting of Adam and Eve was painted by Lucas Cranach the Elder, who himself has no relevance to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but critics have drawn parallels between Eve's offering of fruit to Adam and Bertilak's wife's offering of a girdle to Gawain, therefore the image of Eve offering fruit to Adam helps illustrate a concept discussed in the article. H.J. Draper does not need to have any relevance to When God Writes Your Love Story; his painting of Ulysses and the Sirens helps illustrate an important concept discussed in the article. The photograph of Neil Gaiman on Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell serves the same purpose as the image of Anne Curtis on this article; they are both famous people who endorsed the book and who are quoted in the respective articles; that is quite enough relevance to satisfy our guidelines on the relevance of images to the articles on which they appear. Neelix (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No one has refuted my arguments for a week, so I have readded the images. Neelix (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I still wholeheartedly disagree, but I'm at a training institute 2,000+ miles from my home and have had limited to no internet access this entire week. You took three days to reply to my first comment, and two days to reply to the second. Reinstating the images with only your opinion backing that decision is borderline edit-warring. This is undoubtedly a time when you should've asked for a second opinion. I will post a full reply when I return home from this trip. American Eagle (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I am glad to have more eyes on this discussion if you believe that you and I cannot come to a resolution on our own. I feel as though I have done far more than restate my opinion, and five days is the standard time after lack of discussion to take action on a proposed edit. Please advise how you would prefer to proceed. Neelix (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Ehh, I'm on a roadtrip and don't have time to review your arguments fully. I certainly will leave the images alone until I can review it fully and convince you of my reasoning. I'm too tired right now haha. American Eagle (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 19, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Overall, writing quality is pretty good, but there are some relatively easy things to address, primarily with respect to NPOV concerns.
  3. Lede/intro sect = 3rd paragraph is a bit long. Perhaps consider splitting it into two paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, it's okay to have a 4 paragraph lede.
  4. Six (6) uses of "also", perhaps some of these can be removed?
  5. Eight (8) uses of "but", maybe some of these could be trimmed out?
  6. Background - background sect might flow a bit better if it were broken up into 2 paragraphs.
  7. Contents - this sect might read a little easier if it were split down into 4 paragraphs.
  8. Critical response - long paragraphs in this sect, might consider splitting each one in half to have breaks for smaller paragraphs.
2. Factually accurate?:
  1. Critical response - "this book inspired me to want only the best. In fact, God's best, for me. Because then it will be the most beautiful love story in the world." - Needs cite directly after this quote.
  2. Last paragraph of Critical response sect = Needs inline cites directly after each sentence that has a quote, not just end of paragraph.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:
  1. Concerns about NPOV issues.
  2. The article apparently cites one (1) source that is critical of the book's thesis. This seems to suggest there may be more sources out there with a similar viewpoint, and yet none are cited. Perhaps further research is needed to find other critical viewpoints from secondary sources?
  3. Might consider trimming some more of those quotes from the Critical response sect and paraphrasing them, that would make it a bit more NPOV.
5. Article stability?
  1. Article is stable upon inspection of talk page history and article edit history going back over one month.
  2. However, perhaps GA nominator could please explain a bit about the discussion on the talk page relating to images?
6. Images?:
  1. File:When God Writes Your Love Story.jpg - expanded the fair use rationale for this.
  2. File:Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper.jpg - image checks out okay.
  3. File:Leslie Ludy.jpg - suggest adding "personality rights" tag for this, and OTRS couldn't hurt for extra confirmation.
  4. File:Anne Curtis (2009).jpg - image checks out alright.


NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have split the paragraphs according to recommendations, reduced the number of instances of "also" and "but", added citations directly following quotations, reduced the number of quotations by way of paraphrasing, and added the personality rights tag to the image of Leslie Ludy.
How do I go about OTRS with respect to the image of Leslie Ludy?
There are a few sources cited in the article that are critical of the book; "God Does Not Want to Write Your Love Story" is the most directly combative, Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church provides a negative review, and Rick Holland's review is ambivalent. By far, the reviews I have drawn on the most are the negative ones; approximately a third of the "Critical response" section is taken up by "God Does Not Want to Write Your Love Story" and Singled Out. I have not omitted any sources I have been able to find; whether positive or negative, I have used all the reviews I have come across. I have searched for sources using Google Books and Google News in addition to academic journal databases. I do not know of any more reviews of the book, nor do I know where I might find additional reviews. Please let me know if there is some way that I might reword the section to avoid bias. I am also willing to search for additional sources in any ways you might suggest.
With respect to the above discussion of the images, I believe that American Eagle believes two of the images (that of the Sirens and that of Anne Curtis) are insufficiently related to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion. I disagree, as I believe these images to be just as relevant to the subject of the article as many images on featured articles are to the subjects of those articles. Considering that American Eagle has not responded to my arguments in more than a month, I assume that he/she has conceded the point. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, will take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I looked over the Critical response section, again, and after the explanation above by Neelix (talk · contribs) I know think it is actually quite neutral in tone and NPOV, I'm impressed. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GA passed

GA passed. Thanks so much for such responsiveness to the review, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Awkward text and arrangements

This would probably have been more appropriate in the FA review, but better late than never.

  • "... Mark Matlock and Jason Evert, gave positive criticism for When God Writes Your Love Story." - Isn't there a better way of writing that?
  • "When God Writes Your Love Story was received positively by Filipino actresses." - What? Surely the book doesn't specifically reach out to Filipino actresses. This reads like - "hey, two people liked the book, and they were both Filipino actresses, let's glom them together and generalize."
  • Same section, what is the fact the Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center gave a course using the book doing under Critical response: Readers? There is no critical response there.
  • "Leah Andrews of the Lewiston Morning Tribune compared When God Writes Your Love Story to Joshua Harris's I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy Meets Girl, all three being popular Christian books providing alternatives to dating." - And how did she compare them? This reads like she merely listed them all in a "see also" section; surely she actually had a critical response, if she is a critic?

--GRuban (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, George. I have reworded the first sentence you indicate and Bernie has reworded the second. That the Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center used the book in one of their courses seems to me to be a critical response in itself. Do you feel that this paragraph should be moved elsewhere in the article? As for Andrews' statement, she does not provide any criticism of the books beyond referring to all three as being popular Christian books providing alternatives to dating; she simply lists the three books and makes this statement about them. I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. Neelix (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Neelix, the first two are fine now. I do think the Center's action doesn't fit as a reader critical response. A response, yes, but it's not really that of a reader, and it's not really critical, any more than a class teaching Spanish is a critical review of its textbook. True, I can't think of a currently existing section in the article to stick it in, but it sticks out of this one, and we shouldn't force it in, this is supposed to be our finest work after all. As for the fourth, if that was really all Andrews wrote, a list of books, then it's not really useful - we would get more mileage of including a link to our category listing other Christian marriage books, since those at least have brief descriptions of each. It's not as if there were only those three. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you arguing that we should put the information about the Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center in its own section? With respect to Andrews' statement, I don't think Wikipedia has a list of Christian marriage books. Even if there were such a list, we would need a source like Andrews' in order to demonstrate that drawing the connection is not original research. Neelix (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm arguing that the CCPRC statement doesn't fit where it is placed, since it is not a critical response from readers. I don't have a great suggestion on where to put it, its own section would be better than nothing. If all Andrews' statement does is mention the book in a list, and can not be expanded beyond that, then it is a trivial mention of no value and should be deleted. --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The CCPRC source does provide some critical response, but that response was removed during the FAC. We could readd it. What do you think? I think we disagree about Andrews' statement. Because it establishes a connection between When God Writes Your Love Story and the two books by Joshua Harris, I think it an important statement to retain. Neelix (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

21 and 16?

Is anyone at all concerned receiveing relationship advice from a couple who technically were engaged in statutory assult? not sure where they are from, but where I'm from a 21 year old is an adult and a 16 year old is a minor...those should not mix sexually or intimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.148.220 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Well, it says they met and started "courting" when she was 16, not that they consummated their relationship at that point. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Having sex before marriage is not in line with Christian teachings or belief. It could have happened, but the relationship itself is not legally suspect.50.58.53.206 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
None of this is germane to the purpose of this Talk page; i.e. discussing specific changes to the article. In addition it is completely irrelevant whether we are concerned about the relationship or not. it is not our job as editors to interject our own opinion or let it shape the content. We are to reflect RSs in an appropriate manner. There are many places on the web to go and talk about these issues. This is not one of them. This is not a forum.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Lacking context

I'm a bit dismayed that this article is considered a "featured article" as it lacks a lot of the context I would expect for a decent article on the subject. In particular, I find a lot of academic sources that discuss the larger context about the Evangelical Christian movement's "relationship advice" system in the United States are absent. This wider sociological gestalt is only obliquely referenced by the Evangelical commentariat like Garnder, mostly because they are attached to the community and aren't independent investigators. As a means to show what a good source on the subject would look like in particular, Irby's paper really ought to be used as a starting point: [1]. Additionally, Eric Ludy's peculiar place in the masculinization of Evangelical relationship advising ought to be explored as it is here: [2] which references his books "God's Gift to Women: Discovering the Lost Greatness of Masculinity" and "The Bravehearted Gospel: The Truth is Worth Fighting For" that provided much of the missing context for why these books are popular.

Further explanation of the context is provided by blogger Sarah Moon: [3], [4] (which, by WP:PARITY, should be admitted as a source since crosswalk.com is used).

jps (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all those sources, but blog entries and papers not published in RS, especially if they're your own, are not the sort of thing one bases content on. This article is not about the general phenomenon you're discussing, it's a about a book. While, if one had an RS, it would be worth noting in a sentence that "this book is related to x phenomenon", to add much more is to shoehorn in things beyond the scope of the article. A link to another article on that topic ould be more appropriate. We do not discuss extended theories on the context of every book published. I don't think it's noteworthy in this case, and smacks a little of OR.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the first user and share that dismay. This strikes me as an argument based on christian ethics and seems more like a book advertisement than a "featured article" like the first user said. Danafr3 (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP user above is correct; per Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources, we should not include blogs. Crosswalk.com is not a blog and is therefore not comparable to the blogs indicated. The journal articles mentioned should only be included in this article if they make reference to When God Writes Your Love Story. Anyone is welcome to create a separate article about the general literary movement. Neelix (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Irby does appear to mention this book at some point so it can be used, though I don't think the other paper mentions it. Sarah Moon's Patheos blog, on the other hand, should probably not be used as a source. Moon is a university student. Although studying in a relevant field, I don't think a student blogger should be given any weight here. Rick Holland, who writes the piece in Crosswalk, is a college professor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The Master's Seminary, where Rick Holland is a professor, is not a college like Harvard or Yale. It is an extension of the Grace Community Church. It is a doctrinaire institution where its faculty must sign an annual compulsory affirmation of belief in its doctrine. This is not a school whose first allegiance is to advance knowledge and seek the truth; it is a school of religious zealots. The argument can be easily defended that the opinion of a student blogger in any field except for a specific interpretation of the Bible would have equal weight to a "professor" at this institution. If Wikipedia is going to proscribe self-published sources, then it should also be wary of think-tanks and "academic" institutions that publish in journals and other circulars that do not go through the rigors of peer-review and analysis. PJtP (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not proscribe the use of seminary sources in citations, but it does proscribe such use of blogs. If you disagree, you are welcome to initiate a discussion on the relevant policy talk page. Neelix (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Crosswalk.com does not have an editorial policy that looks any more stringent than patheos.com. It has a section of blogs just like patheos. I think the only distinction may be that they don't pay their bloggers while they pay their other contributors. This is not "self-published" in the same sense as the link you provide or, even if you want to argue that patheos blogs are "self-published", you'd be hard-pressed to show that Crosswalk.com sources are not. jps (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not proscribe the use of blogs. This is a common simplification of the policy which proscribes the use of blog sources for controversial content about living people. This is not what we're discussing here and Moon may actually be one of the best sources for the alternative critical perspective on this book. jps (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I also shared the concerns when this article featured on the front page in its current state. Perhaps if there was concrete text under discussion then things could move forward. Blogs clearly are reliable for opinion, and there is no blanket ban on blogs (pathoes isn't an ordinary blog site either and is clearly on at least the same footing as Crosswalk.com, and does have due weight). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Any published work which specifically mentions this book is a candidate to be considered as a source. If it doesn't, then using it to try to add criticism to this article is synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
During the FAC, it was made clear that opinion statements should only be included in the article if the commentators are qualified to speak on the subject; many opinion statements by unqualified commentators were removed from the article prior to it being featured. As far as I can tell, Sarah Moon is no more qualified to comment on this book than any of the other commentators whose opinions were removed from the article. Her blog posts should not be added as valid sources. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The following sources have questionable credentials and lack serious qualifications:

  • Mark Matlock has no licensure nor any professional certifications in social work nor psychological counseling. His "youth expert" status is attested only by those of his religious affiliation.
  • Jason Evert has no licensure nor any professional certificaitons and advocates fringe positions about abstinence only sexual education that mean he should be removed from the article.
  • Margaret and Dwight Peterson have no licensure nor any professional certifications in social work nor psychological counseling. Their status is attested only by their affiliation with Evangelical Christian colleges.
  • Christine A. Colón and Bonnie E. Field have neither licensure nor any professional certifications in social work nor psychological counseling. Their only qualifications seem to be that they teach at a Christian college in an unrelated area.
  • Rachelle Ann Go and Anne Curtis are actresses and have no licensure nor any professional certifications in social work nor psychological counseling. Her only qualifications seem to be that she is an actress.
  • Katie Kiesler has absolutely no qualifications for any commentary whatsoever.
  • Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center is a place that promotes pseudoscience and fringe theories about abortions as do all faith-based crisis pregnancy centers. There is no indication that the people who offered commentary on this book are in any way qualified to do so.
  • Leah Andrews has no qualifications to review the content of this book either.
  • Rick Holland has no no licensure nor any professional certifications in social work nor psychological counseling. His only qualification seems to be that he teaches at a seminary on subjects that are unrelated to the book.

In short, I see no reason why Sarah Moon's commentary is any more unworthy than these. It is legitimate, high-quality criticism. If the argument is that she isn't qualified, neither are any of the other sources used in the last two sections. So I recommend either including Sarah Moon or removing all the rest of the commentary entirely.

jps (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the people mentioned above are either independently notable, have relevant expertise to the subject of this article, or have been published in a reliable source or by a reputable publishing company. Sarah Moon meets neither of these criteria. Neelix (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity. What are we defining as relevant expertise? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Independent notability of a source is not a valid rationale for reliability. The "relevant expertise" of every single source cited has been duly impeached by their lack of credentials or their inexperience with the subject of the book, book publishing, or book writing. Publication by a "reputable publishing company" is often an indication of a good source, but is neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for determining reliability. Finally, Sarah Moon meets the most important criteria: she has written an important piece of independent criticism that rises to the level of high-quality scholarship. Her blog post is, ironically, better than almost all of the other sources being used in this article right now. Although I can see an argument for not including her as a source, if one is to take that sort of draconian opinion of what sources qualify for use in Wikipedia, I think there is also a very good argument to be made to remove the rest of the sources I list as well. jps (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering that we do not appear to be approaching an agreement, and that you state below that you plan on submitting this article for a featured article review, perhaps this topic would best be raised there, where we are likelier to receive input from other editors. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the timetable for that is apparently six months, perhaps you would like to clarify your criteria for defining relative expertise? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that all of the opinions currently cited in the article are published in reliable sources or by a reputable publishing company, I don't think consideration of their relevant expertise is of major consideration. Moon is not thus published, but Irby is; I may be able to retrieve that source through my local library. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've asked you to clarify the expertise and you have replied with a comment which re-iterates that the included opinions have relevant expertise (or rather you appear to be know sifting the ground saying expertise doesn't matter). Can you please clarify what you are defining as relevant expertise, and how you distinguish the reputability of say crosswalk.com, Gospel Light Publications, NavPress, and Baker Publishing Group from patheos? i.e how do you demarcate the reputability of Christian Apologetics groups and their publishers from Patheos exactly? Personally I don't see any of them being reliable for anything except opinion, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Patheos is a blog. It is not peer-reviewed. I could easily write a blog including my own opinions about the book and my blog post would have no more reliability than Moon's. If we were to start accepting blogs as valid sources, it would be tantamount to allowing any Wikipedia editor to include their own opinions in the text of the article, so long as they wrote a blog post first. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
None of the sources listed above were peer-reviewed. There is a difference between a blog that is posted on a site that solicits for writers and one that is self-published on blogger or wordpress, for example. Distinguishing between good and bad sources ought ultimately to be done on the basis of whether the source has a high editorial standard independent of the personal or publishing credentials that are extant. I note that Huffington Post, for example, is used a lot at this website to good effect, yet the vast majority of its content is unsolicited self-published material. In that sense, that "patheos" seal is actually a bit better than Huffington Post, in my opinion. Ultimately, I think we need to be discerning, but we can't be discriminatory. If crosswalk.com is considered a "valid source" then so should patheos.com. I don't see any difference between the standards evinced at either of those sites. I can see your argument that patheos shouldn't be used, but I don't understand it in light of the fact that other "self-published" criticism is used in the article. The only difference I see is an ideological one. jps (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"I could easily write a blog including my own opinions about the book and my blog post would have no more reliability than Moon's". I don't think you could get yourself a blog at Patheos as easily as you appear to think, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The primary difference between the Patheos source and the sources included on the article is that Patheos is a blog, while the other sources are not. The relevant difference is not an ideological one, as should be clear from the inclusion of the Irby source. The Huffington Post is not included on this article, and I would not recommed that it be included on any article; I do not believe that it would be included on the revision of an article that was promoted to featured status, although you are welcome to correct me on this. Neelix (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what distinguishes them rather than merely one being a blog. i.e can you go beyond that with specifics of why one is more reliable than the other, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

just because something is in a book format doesnt make it a reliable source that provides a valid point of view. just because something is in blog format does not automatically make it unacceptable. if the only "difference between the Patheos source and the sources included on the article is that Patheos is a blog, while the other sources are not. " then we are at the position that we must remove the sources that do not meet relevant quality sourcing standards. If the is a quality difference between the various sources, please articulate what those quality standards are. QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV's user:jps's list above examining the sources' quality and expertise appears pretty convincing, particularly against "its a bog cannot use. its a book cannot remove or challenge." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
All of the sources currently employed in this article had to be reviewed by their publishers before publishing, whether online or in print. Such is not the case for the Patheos source. The Patheos source should not be included, and the sources already included should remain. Neelix (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Erm, there is no indication that Crosswalk.com reviewed Rick Holland's much leaned-on review before he posted it. Can you point to their editorial policy that indicates it is somehow more stringent than Patheos? jps (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have e-mailed Crosswalk.com to inquire about their article review policy. This article specifically, however, is an excerpt from the book 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life : Defining Your Dating Style, which I have requested from my local library along with Irby's article. Neelix (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ask them what their expertise is as well. I still haven't received an answer about what constitutes an expert. If their review isn't by an expert, what does that demonstrate? By analogy, I'm sure there are astrology websites that are reviewed by other astrologers. So far expert sounds a lot like "they have to be an evangelical Christian", IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(e.c.) If it is a book excerpt, then it is quite strange that it is being explicitly called out in the text as content of Crosswalk.com. In fact, they may only have permission to reprint it. This, however, makes me wonder what the editorial policies are at the various publishing houses that are admitted as reliable sources here. Are we sure that they are all good outfits? A number of Christian publishing houses are essentially vanity presses in that they ask the authors to contribute money to defray the publication costs as part of the "ministry" (this is, in fact, part of what makes Christian publishing such a lucrative business model). We need to be certain that there are strict editorial policies for all of the books, especially the ones not published by academic presses or well-known houses that have proper editorial standards it is possible to reference. jps (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't given a definition of "expert" because I don't see why it is relevant; we include sources because the sources are reliable, not because the people writing them are experts. No sources have been included or excluded from this article because they are or are not written by evangelical Christians. A representative of Crosswalk.com got back to me to let me know that all of their articles must be reviewed by at least one editor before online publication. Such is not the case for Patheos. None of the publishers of the books cited in this article appear to me to be vanity publishers, but I can look into any particular publishers that give you pause. Neelix (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, in the meantime, we've moved on a bit. The Crosswalk.com source is actually a book chapter and is not published by Crosswalk.com, so I think we need to remove that attribution and just call the point for what it is: a book chapter in devotional literature. However, I'm not convinced that the editorial standards are better just by comparing the sources. Sarah Moon does an excellent job exploring the aspects of Evangelical attitudes toward sex and ignoring that seems really silly especially when we report on the uninformed opinions of actresses. jps (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The mentions of Crosswalk.com have already been removed from the text of the article, and I would be glad to replace the citation information as soon as I receive the book from my local library. Any individual Wikipedian's opinion on whether or not Moon writes a good essay is irrelevant; on Wikipedia, we don't choose sources in such an inherently subjective manner. Instead, we choose sources by their reliability, and Patheos does not review its submissions before publication. Neelix (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that someone isn't a reliable source for their own opinions on a subject if their ideas haven't been reviewed by an editor. How else to explain your insistence that the opinions of actresses are worthy of inclusion here and the opinion of a student of gender studies is not? I think you cannot have it both ways. We need to make an editorial decision about whose opinions we want to include. Whether they are "reviewed" by an editor before submission is irrelevant. jps (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I could understand including Moon's opinions if she was individually notable herself, but she is not. She is neither individually notable nor has any reliable source reviewed her opinions and determined them to be worthy of publication. Because the Moon source passes neither of these criteria, her opinion should not appear in this article. Neelix (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

I am very concerned that an article which is apparently a book advertisement and extremely one-sided should be a featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.65.216 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What in the article's content do you find promotional? If you know of reliable sources providing other perspectives, you are welcome to add them. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the article is inherently skewed as it seems to have received little attention outside of American Conservative Christian circles, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting; if the problem is inherent, as you suggest, then nothing can be done about it. Neelix (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree that since nothing can be done about the problem, it ought to be demoted from the Featured Articles. I simply do not think it is possible to write a good article on this subject within Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry. jps (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If that is your position, you are welcome to initiate a featured article review. Neelix (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I will be doing so after the three-day period has elapsed from the day it was on the main page. That's what the policy states, anyway. jps (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Per featured article review instructions, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." It was promoted on 31st July 2013, so ordinarily there shouldn't be an FAR until at least November. FAR is not a step to be rushed into and there is plenty of time for discussion to take place here first. BencherliteTalk 06:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say there are extenuating circumstances. I don't think that the promotion proceeded along reasonable lines. jps (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'll have to stop you there. No Featured Article is ever finished, necessarily, and while this discussion was essentially regarding content I was quite content to leave it to everyone here. As far as procedural matters go, the FAC was promoted because there was consensus, among a number of experienced reviewers, to do so, and after the nom had remained open a good many weeks to allow for objections, from you or anyone else, which didn't materialise. Now there may well be extenuating circumstances why you didn't show up for the FAC and are commenting now, that's absolutely fine, but I don't think there are extenuating circumstances for a FAR at this stage. Of source if you want to try and pursue that anyway, it's up to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be that the reviewers were not aware of the problems when consensus was reached and, as consensus can change, it is probably a good idea to ask if others see this as an issue. That's all I meant by "extenuating circumstances". Lack of competence seems to be an issue at a lot of FAC discussions I've been reading lately. jps (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Too few opinions tag

I have tagged the article with "too few opinions" as, unfortunately, it seems that the only sources being admitted are (rightly or wrongly) from the Evangelical Christian perspective. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to find sources that offer more opinions. This is something of a WP:NPOV crisis. There are two solutions: remove most of the commentary and stub-ify the article or try to come up with a decent parity with sources that are not explicitly Christian. If this is not possible, I'm not sure an article on this subject is appropriate for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly something we can discuss during the featured article review you mention above. Neelix (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
JPS, you're trying to equally represent the support and opposition to this book, but there doesn't appear to be significant animosity towards it. This isn't On the Origin of Species, The Da Vinci Code or Love Wins. You apparently want to give undue weight to a side that is few and far between. Similarly, why are you not outraged that The Fox and the Hound (a featured article) has zero negative criticism? It simply doesn't exist. I understand that a children's novel does not compare to a religious work, but When God Writes Your Love Story isn't terribly polarizing, either. It hasn't drawn an immense amount of criticism because its most controversial suggestion is abstinence before marriage, which is hardly a new idea. However, by all means, open a FAR if you're concerned. It can only benefit the article. American Eagle (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument, but really, I think you've misinterpreted the issue. I'm not saying that there is or isn't "significant animosity towards it" (I actually think the book itself hasn't received significant enough notice to warrant much more than a stub). I'm saying that there are documented, high-quality critical opinions written about the book that are either not being allowed in the article or haven't been properly included. I'm also concerned that the opinions that are being allowed are all connected ideologically to the book's authors. This is why there are too few opinions. jps (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Where are the documented, high-quality critical opinions you mention? I see no reason to believe that the Moon source fits that description, and we won't know what the Irby source says about the book until one of us is able to retrieve the text of her article, which I am attempting to do. I believe that the tag should be taken down. Neelix (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I presume jps has access, since he mentioned it (I also have access). The book is referenced several times in the article. I might dump some material on the article tomorrow, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Moon source being so derided? Is it solely on the basis of her studenthood? I'm curious. In any case, even if that is not admitted as a source, it indicates an opinion that ought to be explored on a high-quality article on this subject. Articles need to fully explore the subjects that they are about if they are to be of the featured variety. For the Irby source, Wikipedia:Resource_request may be able to help. jps (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I raised some similar concerns in the article's FAC, but wasn't able to find any additional good-quality or better sources which discuss this book. A search of the title on Google Scholar illustrates the situation: [5]. While concerns over the narrow sources available were the main reason I didn't support the nomination, I didn't oppose it either as it does appear to reflect what's available. It doesn't seem fair to tag this article without identifying the specific sources which you think have been missed. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Above, I mention some sources that are not being used, but there is some controversy as to whether they are usable. That's understandable, but my issue is that I don't see justifications for many of the sources still being used in the article (why is a book review by two actresses acceptable but the book review by a student of Women’s and Gender Studies not?). A possible remedy for this may be to remove many of the sources that are offering opinions so that it isn't so one-sided. jps (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that your entire argument is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you truly believe that the source you like belongs in this article, make a policy-backed case for it. Otherwise, stop demanding that valid sources be removed because you can't have your way. American Eagle (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to say that there are double standards being applied to sources in this article. If the bar is that published content by graduate students is not sufficiently high quality for inclusion, then obviously the opinion of two actresses fall below the quality bar being set for inclusion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not see double standards in the sourcing of this article. The actresses mentioned are independently notable; their opinion is inclusion-worthy for that reason. Considering that the Irby article has been added, the tag should be taken down. Neelix (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No they are not. Thats ridiculous. We dont quote Beckham's view of Harry Potter because he is a world wide renown footballer, nor Paris Hilton's appreciation of the Odyssey because she has a gajillion followers on Twitter. Just because someone is a celebrity dont mean their opinion is worth jack. In fact for films its clearly laid out that only professional critics are used Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response - i dont see why the bar would be any lower for non-fiction books.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, if we use that guideline, I think most of the critical responses included in this article except for Irby would have to be removed. In other words, Irby may deserve more WP:WEIGHT than all the rest of the other referenced points combined. jps (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Withdrawing this as a formal proposal - the editing of the article has progressed to a point where the restructuring suggestion is moot.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the spirit of WP:UNDUE, as laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response, that the When_God_Writes_Your_Love_Story#Critical response#Readers section be overhauled so that we are not giving undue weight to certain opinions by 1) removing the first paragraph dealing with the reactions from actresses Go and Curtis as there is no evidence that their opinions have any relevant encyclopedic value. 2) That the second paragraph about author Kiesler's response be integrated into the existing section about other author's responses. and 3) the remaining paragraph about the book's use by a counseling center be framed under a heading of something like "Use by evangelical ministerial organizations."

  • support as the proposer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Some of this is clearly not critical response but other evangelicals who happen to mention the book in their own works which are the equivalent of Pulp magazines. Putting irrelevant non-encyclopedic material such as the opinions of some random actresses under "critical response" does not make any sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Go Forth and Be Bold. This is a good direction to go. jps (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response is film-specific, it states that "notable persons... may also be cited." Such should remain the case here; the information about Go and Curtis should not be removed. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
May also be cited isn't the same as should be cited. you need to establish a case for why. The burden is on you, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that they provide non-American perspectives in a reliable source should be sufficient reason to include their responses. Neelix (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
not its not. just because some guy with a blog is based in Nigeria or Finland rather than US or England doesnt make his opinion any more worthy of being included. If they were somehow experts in an appropriate field, then sure or if there was something that said "after their endorsements, sales in the Philippines skyrocketed" then sure, there as is real world effect. "Two actresses gave books as gifts" is not .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with TRPoD. That's a very poor argument for including the actresses opinions in this article, made especially strange by your insistence that a Gender Studies student's perspective needs to be kept out. jps (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a reliable source. I see nothing in the guidelines that requires that these commentators be experts. Neelix (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Blogs are extremely reliable sources for the opinion of the person who owns the blog. End of story. The Philippine Daily Inquirer may be a reliable source for the opinions of the actress, sure, but it's not any MORE reliable for reporting on opinions than a blog. You are 100% wrong about your claim that "blogs are not reliable sources". Wikipedia policy does not say ANYWHERE that blogs are unreliable sources for the opinion of the blogger. There have been plenty of discussion on this in the archives of WP:RSN and I encourage you to read those archives. Make sure you distinguish between facts and opinions. That's a key thing to be able to do. Frankly, I'm very disappointed that you don't seem to have a grasp on this extremely basic concept. jps (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@Neelix - did you read WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID? Just cause someone has an opinion, doesn't mean we include it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything in either of those policies that suggests that the Philippine Daily Inquirer source should not be included. Why are they relevant here? Neelix (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally Support - this approach to reorganization should help even out the balance more, and emphasize. However, I am having some concerns about removing Go and Curtis per Neelix, but at the same time the Readers section is a little odd, Sadads (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on all accounts. All three are simply unnecessary; in particular, #3 which would create a new subsection for one review that is currently and sufficiently covered by the umbrella term "Readers". American Eagle (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • the content about the single organization could be lumped with the motivational speakers under a slightly modified heading. although one may question if it is only being used by a single local organization, exactly what significance that has for the book and what value that reference brings to the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds as if you are attempting to reevaluate the terms of your own proposal. American Eagle (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Re-evaluating part of my proposal, yes. Under the third prong "something like "Use by evangelical ministerial organizations." " would read "something like: "Use by evangelical ministerial organizations and Christian motivational speakers" and we would bring in the motivational speakers from that are currently under "Writers" - not a very big re-evaluation. I had not included that as part of the original proposal as unnecessarily complicating.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This removal by TRPOD is a good one, taking out gossipy, unimportant opinions from people who are not professional critics. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on When God Writes Your Love Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on When God Writes Your Love Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on When God Writes Your Love Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on When God Writes Your Love Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:When_God_Writes_Your_Love_Story/Archive_1&oldid=1151017733"