Talk:The New Believers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New Believers article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is becoming really silly. Why the spurious tags? I have used multiple sources for this article, not just primarty sources. Primary sources on an article about itself are OK, if other sources are included as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Please accept my apologies. I did not see the sources as they did not appear in the references subsection. Thank you. Smee 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Apologies accepted. If you want to add the "unbalanced" tag, I need to know your opinion about what is unbalanced. Otherwise you keep me guessing and unable to address your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced

• This article is unbalanced, and needs more critical reviews and/or commentary to balance out all of the excerpted laudatory commentary. Smee 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have not found any negative reviews. If you can find any, by all means add them. An article cannot be called unbalanced if there are no reliable sources that have a critical viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, if critical sources cannot be found, but - Why not? You have made this identical argument on pages of other books and articles in the past. To be fair, so have others opposed to certain points of view covered in certain books... Smee 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

The burden to provide material about such neglected viewpoints, is on the editor making claims that there are such neglected viewpoints. When I made such claims in other articles is because I knew that there were such neglected viewpoints, I then researched and found material for balance. I invite you to do the same, or to remove the tag after a reasonable period of time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I would hope that you hold yourself to those assertions across the board - and that if you find an article in the future whose subject you do not agree with - you don't make an issue of nonexistent criticisim in the article, simply because there already is praise in that article. But I do see your points, and I will endeavour to find appropriate sources for this article and add material. Thank you. Smee 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).