When God Writes Wikipedia

[iii]

When God Writes Your Love Story (T-H-L) was featured on the main page today.

The article might as well be a hack piece written by a PR company. Essentially every source that the article uses is by American Evangelical Christians offering either effusive praise or light-touch criticism. Meanwhile, the fact that the book is part of an entire industry of religious self-help pablum is essentially unmentioned. It is almost as if the authors are unaware that there might be a broader context for this particular book.

This is symptomatic of Wikipedia's ongoing issues in misogyny. Sociology, comparative religion, and feminist scholarship have all taken note of this particular genre of religious anti-feminism and the cultural attachments that are made to it. Yet such academic critique is totally absent from the article.

In related news, Neelix (T-C-L) is the main author and indicates that he was contacted by the ministry run by the book's authors about the article.

Edited to indicate that the contacts were actually the couple's ministry, not the publishers.

[Randy from Boise]

When God Writes Your Love Story (T-H-L) was featured on the main page today.

The article might as well be a hack piece written by a PR company. Essentially every source that the article uses is by American Evangelical Christians offering either effusive praise or light-touch criticism. Meanwhile, the fact that the book is part of an entire industry of religious self-help pablum is essentially unmentioned. It is almost as if the authors are unaware that there might be a broader context for this particular book.

This is symptomatic of Wikipedia's ongoing issues in misogyny. Sociology, comparative religion, and feminist scholarship have all taken note of this particular genre of religious anti-feminism and the cultural attachments that are made to it. Yet such academic critique is totally absent from the article.

In related news, Neelix (T-C-L) is the main author and indicates that he was contacted by the book publishers about the article.

Obviously a classic piece of pay-to-play.

Gorgeously crafted tl;dr article. The Wikipedia main page isn't for sale, it's given away free to commercial interests — courtesy of a "community" incapable of grasping the value of such things...

Blech.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

Leslie Ludy (pictured) writes that it is important to listen intently and regularly to God's voice when seeking discernment about romantic relationships, and Jason Evert commends her on this assertion.

The 'pictured' bit is a nice touch.

[DanMurphy]

When God Writes Your Love Story (T-H-L) was featured on the main page today.

The article might as well be a hack piece written by a PR company. Essentially every source that the article uses is by American Evangelical Christians offering either effusive praise or light-touch criticism. Meanwhile, the fact that the book is part of an entire industry of religious self-help pablum is essentially unmentioned. It is almost as if the authors are unaware that there might be a broader context for this particular book.

This is symptomatic of Wikipedia's ongoing issues in misogyny. Sociology, comparative religion, and feminist scholarship have all taken note of this particular genre of religious anti-feminism and the cultural attachments that are made to it. Yet such academic critique is totally absent from the article.

In related news, Neelix (T-C-L) is the main author and indicates that he was contacted by the ministry run by the book's authors about the article.

Edited to indicate that the contacts were actually the couple's ministry, not the publishers.

That's a particularly egregious one no doubt. Pay to play or not, straight evidence of how stupid and incompetent (or corrupt) folks over there are. One of the photo captions tells the whole story:

The Leslie Ludy (pictured) writes that it is important to listen intently and regularly to God's voice when seeking discernment about romantic relationships, and Jason Evert commends her on this assertion.

The Featured article "reviewers?"

Support, as GA Reviewer. I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with the ability of Neelix (talk · contribs) to write the article in a neutral tone that amply satisfies NPOV, particularly with regard to the article's subject matter. Good luck, — Cirt (T-C-L) (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support after changes made since feedback. Good Job Neelix! Sadads (T-C-L) (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian. I think this meets the FA standards and so am upgrading to support. I hope you have a great trip Neelix! —Cliftonian (T-C-L) (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose (T-C-L) 10:15, 31 July 2013

Isn't the "Cirt" construct a paid editor? I suspect some mutual back scratching goes on between "Cirt" and "Neelix."

[Peter Damian]

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 …

Sociology, comparative religion, and feminist scholarship have all taken note of this particular genre of religious anti-feminism and the cultural attachments that are made to it. Yet such academic critique is totally absent from the article.
jps (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No one loves a smart alec. Not on Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

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)

Putting in context = Original research.

By the way, I called this the reverse burden of proof problem, when I wrote one of those silly WP essays years ago.

Instead of them having to prove that their view is supported by reliable and independent sources, they will shift the burden of proof over to you, so you have to prove either that their view is not supported, or even that it is refuted by reliable and independent sources. This is difficult for two reasons. First, it is always difficult to prove a negative existential statement (which is in effect a claim about everything there is). Second, because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific.

The present case is not pseudoscience, of course, rather devotional literature masquerading as self-help psychologism. But the problem is the same. It is difficult to find reliable sources about this kind of literature, because truly reliable sources tend to ignore it.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Under the circumstances, it is relatively balanced in describing the reception. As Damian notes above, most commentary about the book is going to come from religious circles and I would say that is fine. Obviously, all significant views should be included, but adding criticism that is not clearly tied to the specific subject opens up a can of worms. You do seem to have something with the Irby paper, though, Josh.

[roger_pearse]

When God Writes Your Love Story (T-H-L) was featured on the main page today.

The article might as well be a hack piece written by a PR company. Essentially every source that the article uses is by American Evangelical Christians offering either effusive praise or light-touch criticism. Meanwhile, the fact that the book is part of an entire industry of religious self-help pablum is essentially unmentioned. It is almost as if the authors are unaware that there might be a broader context for this particular book.

This is symptomatic of Wikipedia's ongoing issues in misogyny. Sociology, comparative religion, and feminist scholarship have all taken note of this particular genre of religious anti-feminism and the cultural attachments that are made to it. Yet such academic critique is totally absent from the article.

(Bolding added by me)

Friend, that sounds as if your objection is primarily that Christians commit ThoughtCrime. Doubtless this is so. I do myself. I don't quite see why you suppose that everyone shares your beliefs, you know? But I don't see that Wikipediocracy as such should have a view either way on this kind of thing; politics and religion are things everyone differs on. Mind you, the suggestion that "sociology" is academic raises a smile or two ... I thought the pretence that sociology was science died in the 80's.

Now I can't say that I have ever heard of the book. But if I were editing WP, I'd wonder how notable it is. I don't see anything in the article that explains why the book is more notable than hundreds of others published on the subject of dating. If it is notable, why does an encyclopedia need more than a short article on it?

But as a non-Yank, I am probably missing something.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[SB_Johnny]

Because Eric (pictured) and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors Christine A. Colón and Bonnie E. Field suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

I wonder if they met on IRC.

[iii]

But if I were editing WP, I'd wonder how notable it is. I don't see anything in the article that explains why the book is more notable than hundreds of others published on the subject of dating. If it is notable, why does an encyclopedia need more than a short article on it?

Here is our common ground, friend. That Wikipedia has an article on the "subject" of this book is pretty outrageous if you ask me. I don't begrudge the Christians for having their own cottage industries of publishing and back-scratching, but last I checked Wikipedia was not supposed to be an advertising service for such.

When I look at articles in Wikipedia, I wonder how the subject of the article has been investigated academically (video games and pop culture articles confuse me a lot for this reason). In this particular case, the people who actually study religion in such contexts tend to be in the sociology departments of secular institutions. That you may disagree with the take of such academics is really neither here nor there. It is pretty obvious that this extant perspective is not even mentioned in the article while, at the same time, English professors at Evangelical colleges (how are they relevant experts, exactly?) and ministers are currently the only sources cited about the book. Just so.

To be clear, the real fiasco is that the article in question was "identified" as one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" even while its effusive content nearly rises to the level of parody and the editorial direction eschews any sense of serious scholarship. This is just emblematic of the pathetic state of the website.

[Peter Damian]

When I look at articles in Wikipedia, I wonder how the subject of the article has been investigated academically (video games and pop culture articles confuse me a lot for this reason). In this particular case, the people who actually study religion in such contexts tend to be in the sociology departments of secular institutions.

Ahem. I have a diploma in theology, not affiliated with any sociology department. The substance of the course was textual and 'theological' in the sense that you had to interpret any specific biblical passage in terms of its intended meaning, i.e. what were the authors of the text trying to say. It differed in no respect from how you would analyse a work of fiction in lit crit.

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature (of which the book we are discussing is a perfect example), and you lost marks for citing or referring to such material.

[Vigilant]

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

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

.
.
lalalalala - three days pass
.
.

GA passed

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

Perfect!

A rotten candidate for a rotten borough.

[iii]

When I look at articles in Wikipedia, I wonder how the subject of the article has been investigated academically (video games and pop culture articles confuse me a lot for this reason). In this particular case, the people who actually study religion in such contexts tend to be in the sociology departments of secular institutions.

Ahem. I have a diploma in theology, not affiliated with any sociology department. The substance of the course was textual and 'theological' in the sense that you had to interpret any specific biblical passage in terms of its intended meaning, i.e. what were the authors of the text trying to say. It differed in no respect from how you would analyse a work of fiction in lit crit.

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature (of which the book we are discussing is a perfect example), and you lost marks for citing or referring to such material.

As with pseudoscience, the academic study of devotional literature (or, I suppose we might say, "pseudotheology") is not really done by the experts in the parent subject (theology) but rather by those who study the peculiar characteristics of human society that produce this kind of thing (sociology).

I suppose there may be some great takedown of nonsensical devotional literature written by some competent academic theologian to be found somewhere, but I don't think most would waste their time on worrying about seriously critiquing such dreck, do you?

[SB_Johnny]

I don't think most would waste their time on worrying about seriously critiquing such dreck, do you?

Um, you're talking to a guy who has been for a large several of years writing a book on Wikipedia.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

[Peter Damian]

When I look at articles in Wikipedia, I wonder how the subject of the article has been investigated academically (video games and pop culture articles confuse me a lot for this reason). In this particular case, the people who actually study religion in such contexts tend to be in the sociology departments of secular institutions.

Ahem. I have a diploma in theology, not affiliated with any sociology department. The substance of the course was textual and 'theological' in the sense that you had to interpret any specific biblical passage in terms of its intended meaning, i.e. what were the authors of the text trying to say. It differed in no respect from how you would analyse a work of fiction in lit crit.

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature (of which the book we are discussing is a perfect example), and you lost marks for citing or referring to such material.

As with pseudoscience, the academic study of devotional literature (or, I suppose we might say, "pseudotheology") is not really done by the experts in the parent subject (theology) but rather by those who study the peculiar characteristics of human society that produce this kind of thing (sociology).

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes.

I suppose there may be some great takedown of nonsensical devotional literature written by some competent academic theologian to be found somewhere, but I don't think most would waste their time on worrying about seriously critiquing such dreck, do you?

Well, some people, e.g. medieval historians, study old devotional literature for an insight into the worldview of a particular period. I don't know of any academic studies on modern devotional literature. It might be quite interesting. But the study would look nothing like that Wikipedia article, granted.

I don't think most would waste their time on worrying about seriously critiquing such dreck, do you?

Um, you're talking to a guy who has been for a large several of years writing a book on Wikipedia.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Oi I find Wikipedia very interesting. I'm a historian of ideas, and the ideas behind Wikipedia, however mixed up, and the social movement that drives it, are a rich subject.

[roger_pearse]

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature ...

If so, what business had they teaching theology, or being ordained?

Weird.

[Peter Damian]

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature ...

If so, what business had they teaching theology, or being ordained?

Weird.

Liberal catholic wing of CofE, diocese of Southwark. Does that help? 'Alpha' theologians would probably have a different attitude, I agree.

[roger_pearse]

But if I were editing WP, I'd wonder how notable it is. I don't see anything in the article that explains why the book is more notable than hundreds of others published on the subject of dating. If it is notable, why does an encyclopedia need more than a short article on it?

Here is our common ground, friend. That Wikipedia has an article on the "subject" of this book is pretty outrageous if you ask me. I don't begrudge the Christians for having their own cottage industries of publishing and back-scratching, but last I checked Wikipedia was not supposed to be an advertising service for such. (etc)

No offence, but you seem to be expressing a very overt religious belief that articles about Christianity or Christian things should only be written from a position of disagreement and criticism. I'm afraid I don't share it. To do so is not value-neutral, nor scholarly: it is merely one of religious animosity. Live and let live, I say.

Likewise it seems rather strange to complain that Wikipedia has an article on a piece of devotional literature. Think carefully about what kind of encyclopedia would omit Thomas a Kempis. The question is notability, not genre.

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

We could, of course, take the view that small communities should not have their views expressed in Wikipedia anywhere without stern criticism. Such as Jews, for instance. But somehow that seems a little intolerant to me. :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

The teachers (all of whom were clergy) were openly contemptuous of what they called 'devotional' literature ...

If so, what business had they teaching theology, or being ordained?

Weird.

Liberal catholic wing of CofE, diocese of Southwark. Does that help? 'Alpha' theologians would probably have a different attitude, I agree.

Not surprised (but still contemptuous). Not very respectful of clerical hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

[Peter Damian]

But if I were editing WP, I'd wonder how notable it is. I don't see anything in the article that explains why the book is more notable than hundreds of others published on the subject of dating. If it is notable, why does an encyclopedia need more than a short article on it?

Here is our common ground, friend. That Wikipedia has an article on the "subject" of this book is pretty outrageous if you ask me. I don't begrudge the Christians for having their own cottage industries of publishing and back-scratching, but last I checked Wikipedia was not supposed to be an advertising service for such. (etc)

You seem to have a very overt religious belief that articles about Christianity or Christian things should only be written from a position of disagreement and criticism. I'm afraid I don't share it. To do so is not value-neutral, nor scholarly, whatever foolish people may believe: it is merely one of religious animosity. Live and let live, I say.

Likewise it seems rather strange to complain that Wikipedia has an article on a piece of devotional literature. Think carefully about what kind of encyclopedia would omit Thomas a Kempis. The question is notability, not genre.

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Oh come on. Here is the article on Thomas in the Catholic Encyclopedia (itself hardly an unbiased source). There is simply no comparison in style and comparison with the drivel in that Wikipedia article.

[SB_Johnny]

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

Sorry to go all Godwin on you, but do you also think that the KKK should write the articles about the KKK, the Scientologists should write the articles about Scientology, and the card-carrying members of the PRC should write the articles about Mao Zedong?

[DanMurphy]

Wikipedia should only write about this kind of thing when it's of sufficient interest that it's been paid attention to in a serious way outside of whatever bubble it inhabits. This piece of drivel clearly has not, and that a fawning piece of promotion is recognized as "among Wikipedia's best work" is a good illustration of both how poor their overall work is and how incompetent their assessors are.

There is also an article on co-author Leslie Ludy (T-H-L) created this year by an account that closely worked with "Neelix" on the book article, and that is entirely devoted to promoting born again stuff on Wikipedia. Ms. Ludy's article has four sources.
1. A press release from the Christian Home Educators of Ohio that Luddy would be speaking at their annual conference.
2. A paragraph at the website of a past publisher that is badly out of date (or the Wikipedia article is badly wrong).
3. A podcast interview with her at something called "Covenant Eyes." What is Covenant Eyes? "Covenant Eyes is a small company in central Michigan with a big heart to protect families and individuals online. Today tens of thousands of people from Chicago to Shanghai use our Accountability and Filtering Services."
4. A four paragraph review of one of her books in a blog at the Christian Broadcasting Network.

The quality and appropriateness of the article on her husband Eric Ludy (T-H-L) is the same: Dire and thoroughly inappropriate.

(For the record the husbands five sources are:
1. A press release from their former publisher.
2. A press release published in the letter to the editor section of the Crawfordville, Indiana Journal Review.
3. A press release at the website of the Illinois Christian Home Educators.
4. An appearance on a radio program distributed by Focus on the Family.
5. What purports to be an interview with him but at a defunct website "Christianworldview.net." (I bet that URL is worth more than nothing).

These folk haven't even been paid much attention by their own community.

All this is of course thoroughly common on Wikipedia whether it's manga cartoonists, videogame musicians, or religious entrepreneurs.

[roger_pearse]

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

Sorry to go all Godwin on you, but do you also think that the KKK should write the articles about the KKK, the Scientologists should write the articles about Scientology, and the card-carrying members of the PRC should write the articles about Mao Zedong?

LOL. I understand.

But I think we're at cross-purposes, since I don't see the connection. I don't think that at all. Non-members of all these groups probably have something to say about the *groups*.

Say that there is a book specifically on dating for members of the Ku Klux Klan? And a WP article on it? Do outsiders have anything to say on the *book*? (Other than "I want to kill all members of the KKK so bad it hurts, kill them kill them kill them kill them kill them kill them string em up with wire, brand them with a yellow star, etc)? If not, then the only response on the article is likely to be views from within that community.

Unless we take the view that every mention of Jews/insertGroupHere in WP should be accompanied by an explanation of just why Jews/insertGroupHere are scum, as seen by those who disagree? :-)

But we're getting into "reductio ad absurdam" territory. In fact I think we're discussing how, in an encyclopedia, we write articles on people who are unpopular with the establishment, hated by many, and the object of professional "exposes" which tend to reflect political or religious loathing. And there might be various answers, but my short answer is ... calmly, in the first place, and hopefully objectively. It should certainly be possible to write such an article in such a manner that the subject feels that it is fair. Such articles will be brief, I think. But this isn't the place for an essay on the subject.

The point I made was that the book was so specific to a small group that there probably isn't any specific criticism from outside; and if there was, it is questionable whether it would be discussing the book, or instead attacking the group as a whole. But I don't know; never heard of the book or the group in question. The suggestion to which I was responding was that there were university departments dedicated to debunking the book, which, frankly, seems absurd; or, more likely, to debunking the religious group that produced it, which seems irrelevant to the specific article on a specific book. Unless, as I say, I miss something. And I am still waiting to learn why the book is, or is not, notable (being entirely ignorant either way).

Chill, chaps. Gentlemen don't discuss religion or politics at dinner. Let's talk about dogs. :-)

[roger_pearse]

Oh come on. Here is the article on Thomas in the Catholic Encyclopedia (itself hardly an unbiased source). There is simply no comparison in style and comparison with the drivel in that Wikipedia article.

Erm, the suggestion was that no devotional literature should be mentioned. What do we call Thomas a Kempis, other than devotional literature?

The broad-brush may seem absurd, I agree; but it is not MY broad-brush!

Is English prose style the point at issue? I'm not enthused about it in the article. What I don't see is why the article is so very long?

[iii]

No offence, but you seem to be expressing a very overt religious belief that articles about Christianity or Christian things should only be written from a position of disagreement and criticism. I'm afraid I don't share it. To do so is not value-neutral, nor scholarly: it is merely one of religious animosity. Live and let live, I say.

Not at all. I'm saying that one should write from a position of scholarship. Criticism is a part of scholarship as is context. Both of these are absent from the article as written (a "featured" article, remember).

Likewise it seems rather strange to complain that Wikipedia has an article on a piece of devotional literature. Think carefully about what kind of encyclopedia would omit Thomas a Kempis. The question is notability, not genre.

I think you may have misinterpreted me. I agree the question is one of notability and I'm not sure why you think it's one of genre. I could have also highlighted one of the (many) other ridiculous featured articles on video games or hurricanes or American roadways.

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

Which, if true, is why, perhaps, there ought not to be a Wikipedia article on the subject since it is somewhat problematic for Wikipedia to serve as a webhost for such communities, right?

We could, of course, take the view that small communities should not have their views expressed in Wikipedia anywhere without stern criticism. Such as Jews, for instance. But somehow that seems a little intolerant to me. :-)

Criticism is not really the point but the lack of criticism evident in the particular article we're discussing is pretty glaring, IMHO.

[Peter Damian]

Erm, the suggestion was that no devotional literature should be mentioned.

Not my suggestion. An encyclopedia can mention devotional literature, but shouldn't itself be devotional literature.

[DanMurphy]

If I may, on this:

The objection that all comments on the article are from within that community seem curious to me as well; the book is probably only of importance to members of that community (a large group, may I point out). Non-members have nothing to say, beyond their general disagreement with the community as a whole.

I think SA's argument (and would be mine) is not that it's only of "importance" to members of a certain community, but that it is A. Only noted at all within an insular community and B. Is not of any particular importance or impact within that community.

In a certain way, the Book of Mormon is only of importance to Mormons (or people considering becoming Mormons) but most of us would agree that it is also an important book, worthy of both scholarly attention and of the attention of general interest encyclopedias.

Or for an extreme example, consider The Left Behind (T-H-L) Series.

I read the first 6 books years ago when I was boning up on end times Christianity and its impact on US politics. These books are truly awful on every level - and only of importance to a fringe (but still numerous) brand of American Christianity. But the series has received tons of scholarly attention, literary attention, general newspaper attention, business attention and political attention.

Wikipedia should have an article on the series. Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article on the series is about just as bad and written in the same style as the one on this obscure Christian book. The Left Behind series article is also shorter, even though the series has sold over 50 million copies (there are spin out articles for almost all the individual books it seems, but none have anything like a critical or academic approach. The article on the best known of the books, Left Behind (novel) (T-H-L) is half the length of this "featured article.")

So it goes.

[Mancunium]

Where is Wikipedia's scholarly authority to write about anything at all, much less religion?

This is an online encyclopedia: link

Wikipedia is just a nonsensical bloated agglomeration of words that has managed to become the first result for almost every Google search. It has people trusting their physical health to anonymous 14-year-olds, their mental health to vandals and trolls, and their spiritual health to pandemonium.

[iii]

Neelix (T-C-L) is now working on hoop-jumping for Kellie Loder (T-H-L) to be the next feather in his cap. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kellie Loder/archive1 (T-H-L) makes for some interesting tedious reading. Lots of nitpicking, and little of substance until this comment which also points out that our dear friend Ottava Rima has decided to be critical of this user's writing.

[EricBarbour]

Sorry to go all Godwin on you, but do you also think that the KKK should write the articles about the KKK, the Scientologists should write the articles about Scientology, and the card-carrying members of the PRC should write the articles about Mao Zedong?

Instead, their rabid enemies are usually writing the articles. This may or may not result in "neutral treatment".
(And meanwhile, the veneration of Doctor Who and comic books continues.)

[Cla68]

I looked at the article, and it is written neutrally with the sources that it uses. The critical response section of the article is very fairly presented. iii, apart from the notability issue, your problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't include viewpoints from people who criticize Christian philosophy and theistic social science. That's apparently because there aren't any about this particular book. Those people ignore books like this unless it becomes significantly big enough to attract their gaze. So, I think the main issue with this article is notability.

[iii]

I looked at the article, and it is written neutrally with the sources that it uses. The critical response section of the article is very fairly presented. iii, apart from the notability issue, your problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't include viewpoints from people who criticize Christian philosophy and theistic social science. That's apparently because there aren't any about this particular book. Those people ignore books like this unless it becomes significantly big enough to attract their gaze. So, I think the main issue with this article is notability.

My main issue with the article is that Wikipedia is giving it high marks for quality. Is it possible to write a high quality article on an obscure subject like this without doing some serious academic (original) research? I doubt it. I do not think Wikipedia is equipped to be able to accommodate no less adjudicate what a truly excellent article on this book would look like.

[Cla68]

I looked at the article, and it is written neutrally with the sources that it uses. The critical response section of the article is very fairly presented. iii, apart from the notability issue, your problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't include viewpoints from people who criticize Christian philosophy and theistic social science. That's apparently because there aren't any about this particular book. Those people ignore books like this unless it becomes significantly big enough to attract their gaze. So, I think the main issue with this article is notability.

My main issue with the article is that Wikipedia is giving it high marks for quality. Is it possible to write a high quality article on an obscure subject like this without doing some serious academic (original) research? I doubt it. I do not think Wikipedia is equipped to be able to accommodate no less adjudicate what a truly excellent article on this book would look like.

I agree with you on that point. WP's model does get in the way on topics like this.

[DanMurphy]

I looked at the article, and it is written neutrally with the sources that it uses. The critical response section of the article is very fairly presented. iii, apart from the notability issue, your problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't include viewpoints from people who criticize Christian philosophy and theistic social science. That's apparently because there aren't any about this particular book. Those people ignore books like this unless it becomes significantly big enough to attract their gaze. So, I think the main issue with this article is notability.

My main issue with the article is that Wikipedia is giving it high marks for quality. Is it possible to write a high quality article on an obscure subject like this without doing some serious academic (original) research? I doubt it. I do not think Wikipedia is equipped to be able to accommodate no less adjudicate what a truly excellent article on this book would look like.

Bingo. A reasonable (let alone a "great") article on this book is only possible by breaking all of Wikipedia's rules (by a competent pro willing to bother).

[Poetlister]

And meanwhile, the veneration of Doctor Who and comic books continues.

So far as I know, these articles are not written by Dr. Who actors or comic book illustrators. They demonstrate that you can get horrendous results without having authors with apparent COIs.

[roger_pearse]

I looked at the article, and it is written neutrally with the sources that it uses. The critical response section of the article is very fairly presented. iii, apart from the notability issue, your problem with the article seems to be that it doesn't include viewpoints from people who criticize Christian philosophy and theistic social science. That's apparently because there aren't any about this particular book. Those people ignore books like this unless it becomes significantly big enough to attract their gaze. So, I think the main issue with this article is notability.

That was my take on it also.

But for all I know it may have sold a trillion copies. It does seem curious, however, that the question of notability is not addressed by the article.