This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of the
Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
Contents
The Promotion-thing is a fun story, but if somebody who read the book would like to write a "Contents" or similar section, perhaps slightly longer, that would be a good thing.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The TOC chapter titles do not actually seem meaningful alone, e.g. "Chapter One: A Hole in the Corner", and if someone really wanted the TOC the Amazon Look Inside has it. If you look and still think it would be better then go ahead and WP:BOLD enter the edit.
Markbassett (
talk)
19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if that is really the spirit of that policy; since the claims are clearly being made to speak toward the substance of the book and are not ad hominem criticisms, but I removed any mention of Aslan anyway to comply with the letter of the policy. --Atethnekos(
Discussion,
Contributions)07:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Because he fails
WP:BLOGS. He is not an "established expert on the subject matter" and he has not "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Therefore, his blog is not acceptable as a source. As the policy also states, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." There are likely dozens of reliable reviews from newspapers, magazines, news sites etc that could be used instead.
Tiller54 (
talk)
09:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)reply
So I'm still not sure what you mean. So I'm asking about his previous work which was published and why you think those very things aren't reliable, but now you seem to be saying that they don't exist at all. But that just seems so ridiculous, I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean? --Atethnekos(
Discussion,
Contributions)18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)reply
So WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said that he has "not had his work published in reliable third party publications". I'm trying to get a sense of why you think those publications aren't reliable. --Atethnekos(
Discussion,
Contributions)12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
His work is published in large part as books, not scholarly articles. A reliable third party verification would be a scholarly article in a widely respected theological or historical journal, not an attempt to cash in on baiting book titles. A past job at a religious university and a current one in the church don't exactly help establish the lack of an agenda. Don't get me wrong, there are credible people in the church and academia who are credible, but this guy's not one of them.
Rhowryn (
talk)
08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
From the excerpts as currently presented the average wiki reader would take away that the book was universally slammed with no redeeming features save those reserved for works of children's fiction. Having read the post review, it was negative but not as negative as is potrayed here. Even the positive quotations chosen are the snarky ones. I am not wiki expert but this seems biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.166.113.124 (
talk)
05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)reply