Talk:When God Writes Your Love Story

FAR

This article should not have made it to feature article status. In my view, its promotion was a major breakdown of the FA process and it needs to be delisted pending a major rethinking of the approach. I suggest that the issue here is the complete lack of context that explains this book. It is somewhat akin to an article about Das Kapital that makes no mention of the Industrial Revolution.

In substance: this article implicitly adopts as normative an American evangelical perspective. Quite aside from the serious WP:UNDUE issues noted above in terms of the critical reception of the work, this leads to major lacunae in the very analytical approach undertaken here. In other words, for an average reader, major questions are simply not considered. Most obviously, the cultural context that explains this work (which is, I presume largely, although perhaps not entirely, confined to an evangelical readership) is absent. Why? The article includes various insignificant details ("The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters") while simply not addressing how it fits within a larger discursive construct about the propriety of marriage that is, itself, a matter of considerable debate. That is not only relevant, but frankly essential in any encyclopaedic consideration of a work of this nature. Without a much more serious and properly sourced explication of the larger context that explains the cultural backdrop, without a proper and well-sourced discussion that reviews how the themes of this work intersect deliberately with the larger themes of moral advocacy espoused under the mantle of an American evangelical politics, then I cannot comprehend how this can be reasonably construed, not only as an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic, but indeed as fitting the standard for NPOV since the absence (or elision) of such perspective in effect amounts to distortion.

Now, I don't in any way wish to impugn the good faith and hard work of the principal editors. After all, this is not a problem (as I see it) of how the article has been edited, since, with reasonable discussion, I am sure such content can be adduced profitably. But we do have an issue here of having failed to maintain the standards that we need to uphold at WP:FA. As such, I see this as a clearcut case for making an exception to the waiting time for WP:FAR and soliciting in that forum a wider airing of opinion on the matter in the context of what should be upheld as the standard for featured articles. Eusebeus (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So true. I also want to nominate the following featured articles: Sinestro Corps War for being an intergalactic story not containing any reception from astronomers or physicists; Gertie the Dinosaur for not containing any reception from paleontologists or archaeologists; and, of course, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings for not containing any reception from ornithologists. In fact, let's just nominate the entire WP:FA#Literature and theatre section for not containing enough reception from one or more scientific branches - and for the few that do have scientific reviewers, for not containing enough reception from religious critics.

Dude. This isn't an article about marriage in general with specific focus on the book. This is an article solely about the book. If there are critical reviews of the book that discuss marriage in general, it should certainly mention those, quite possibly in depth. Find one, or three, or twelve like that, and if Neelix refuses to add them, I'll be right there with the torches and pitchforks. But if there aren't any, we shouldn't make them up. That would be called Wikipedia:Original research, specifically WP:SYNTHESIS. --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to try to make snarky comparisons, could you at least do it to nonfiction? jps (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

part of the point is that if there are not any reviews that put the book in a larger context, it cannot really be considered one of the best articles- while the article may cover what is printed about it, if what is printed about it is not sufficiently rounded to give the full picture, no amount of good editing by good editors can fill that gap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think an approach that ties the book specifically to the larger context may be too constrictive, especially as this work is too unimportant to have attracted much attention in such a direct way. However, there is an abundance of strong academic literature on the cultural fault lines driving the evangelical movement, and specifically around the effort to link evangelical identity politics via a reading of the propriety of marriage, that offer the kind of clear and credible background that explains why there is a market for this work (and others of its ilk).

And indeed, glimmers of this can already be seen here in the reworked "Academic" section, in which something of the larger context has now been put forward (e.g. themes of chastity / sexual abstinence as a cultural marker of evangelical identity), albeit fleetingly and unsystematically. But the article needs to be rewritten such that these themes form a clearer and more robust basis for an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic. Both the lede and the "Background" section need to be completely rewritten to offer a more rigorous overview / analysis of how this work reflects the larger battleground for American evangelical identity, with specific reference to the principle themes that have been harnessed to this discourse (e.g. chastity, marriage as purity, etc...) that cement this form of identity construction.

To provide a very simple example for GRuban's benefit: a main theme of this work seems to be chastity before (even during?) marriage. Well, don't you think our readers deserve to know something about abstinence as a trope within the evangelical identity, the reasons why abstinence has emerged as a such an identity marker, etc... and the value then of works, like this one, that derive a reading of pre-marital chastity in what appear to be quasi-sacramental terms? Do you really think that unless an article or work on abstinence and evangelical identity happens to mention this rather nugatory title then it cannot be deemed a reliable source, and that such would constitute OR/SYNTH? That is a misreading of both, since the point is not to advance an original argument but merely to offer the needed larger context.

So all that said, there could indeed be a strong article. As it is, however, by avoiding any serious attempt at contextualisation this comes across as a puff piece bordering on (unintentionally, i think) evangelical apologetics. But that, of course, is merely my view. However, I do think that there is enough evidence here of problems to warrant a request for delisting via WP:FAR; whether others agree with me is, of course, far from assured. But as I see no plan evolving on this talk page that would bring the content up to anything approaching the FA standard, FAR seems like the best next step. I will wait, though, before requesting comment at FAR so others can weigh in and show my wrong-headedness! Eusebeus (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than simply pushing for delisting (which would be unusual and disapointing for such a recently-promoted article), can you suggest new text, with supporting references, which could be included in the article? As I'm sure that you're aware, the first stage of the FAR process involves posting suggestions for areas in which the article should be improved, and it only progresses to a vote on delisting when it becomes clear that the article either has fundamental problems which would require a massive re-write (which I don't think is what you're suggesting if I've read your comments correctly), or no progress is being made in addressing these concerns. It seems better to try to work on improving the article at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it may not be possible to write a high quality article about this book under the guidelines of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nick - a very fair point. The thing is, I am not interested in this topic and am not ready to do the heavy lifting required to raise the standards of the article. I do, however, have longstanding interest in the Wikipedia project, and I believe in upholding the standards we assert at WP:FA. That delisting would be "disappointing" - I think there will doubtless be editors who share that sentiment. But as I see it, this should never have been promoted in the first place, and other editors' enthusiasm over the rectification of what could be judged a serious error in the FA process might more than compensate for the disappointment. @jps - you may be right, but that said, this genre of book - it seems to be essentially a kind of crypto-monitory tract, written within (and as part of) the construction of an evangelical identity/identity politics - is unambiguously part of the Zeitgeist in the United States and as such serve to shed light on an interesting sociological phenomenon - that strikes me as potentially encyclopaedic in scope. Eusebeus (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And why don't these standards apply to the other Literature FAs? The first one I mentioned, the Sinestro Corps War article doesn't write about comic books in general, or the history of DC comics, or the history of Green Lantern or even the history of Sinestro, and all the listed critical reviewers are comic book fans. How is that different from all reviewers being Christians here? Don't you think readers deserve to know something about what comics are, what a supervillain is, who Green Lantern is within the DC universe, what the DC universe is, etc? The assumption seems to be made that this is somehow more common knowledge than the basics of evangelical identity, which, frankly, is Wikipedia:Systemic bias; we internet savvy Wikipedia editors read comics more often than we go to church, but the world as a whole is exactly the opposite. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone has proclaimed that Sinestro Corps War in fact should be a FA. The discussion has pretty much been, and I believe rightly so, focused on whether this article contains what is necessary to be considered amongst the best that Wikipedia has to offer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The FA reviewers did, that's why it has the little star in its corner. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

since you are being pedantic "I am not sure that anyone here who is expressing doubts about whether When God Writes Your Love Story should be a FA has proclaimed that Sinestro Corps War in fact should be a FA." But this is not the place to discuss whether or not Sinestro Corps War should be an FA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, consider the dozen FAs about individual episodes of The Simpsons - which of them is asked to describe the show as a whole? That's essentially what you're demanding here, asking that an article about one specific Christian marriage book describe Christian marriage as a whole.--GRuban (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Like your last example, The Simpsons is also a work of fiction and one would imagine there is no greater academic context for The Simpsons for it to be explored in. The Simpsons episodes, say The_City_of_New_York_vs._Homer_Simpson#Reception are of course put into the context of being part of the The Simpsons, but this isn't really comparable since the Simpsons is a work of fiction with each episode independent of each other and not part of a "Simpson's discourse". This article is, as Eusebeus points out, mostly written from an evangelical perspective rather than contextualised with respect to the academic study of the evangelical discourse. i.e It's not a neutral summary of the most reliable sources but is written as though from an evangelical point of view, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

{{offtopic}}It's possible that the episode was mentioned in The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, but why are we talking about other articles anyway? jps (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I think we are demonstrating Wikipedia:Systemic bias here. We are proposing that this Christianity topic article can not ever be FA quality because there are no sources that explore it in a greater context; but plenty of more classically geeky topic articles are fine as FAs because ... there are no sources that explore them in a greater context. We can't have it both ways. --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll let others speak for themselves, but I'm very skeptical that individual Simpsons episodes are liable to be topics for high quality articles given the constraints Wikipedia places on original research, though I haven't read any of them carefully. It is possible that Wikipedia's "Featured Article" process is not well-suited to the task of identifying high-quality encyclopedia articles. I'm not interested in fighting other battles right now, if you don't mind. jps (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

GRuban, you need to calm down a little here. One editor raised questions about whether this could, indeed, be an FA, but no-one else has. Statements like "We are proposing that this Christianity topic article can not ever be FA quality" are unhelpful and do not advance the agenda, which is to establish whether this article, as written really deserves to be FA and, if not, whether it should be delisted or whether the problems can be remedied expeditiously. So far, I have to say, I remain in favour of the former, but I am happy to wait further to see if a plan of attack develops that addresses the concerns I have raised above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually jps and TRPoD have each written as much, and you may notice I was responding to jps. I'm glad you disagree with them; though it seems TRPoD thought that in writing what he did he was actually explaining your point. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am questioning whether this article can be FA: A featured article ... has the following attributes. It is— ... comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" If there are not sufficient sources to place the article in proper context then it cannot meet the FA criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Discussions of context" section seems to accomplish this task well already; there appears to me to be sufficient sources in that section to establish the context. Neelix (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WEIGHTING of academics

I am a little concerned that the academics being cited are as follows:

1. Wheaton College communications professor
2. University of Loyola sociologist of religion
3. Wheaton College English professors
4. North Park University and Eastern University professors of Christian Studies

The first two sources seem to be at least arguably directly related academically. The final two, while perhaps more prominent than the reviews of the two actresses later promoted, are not particularly qualified to comment on the broader subjects of the book. Especially the last one which is essentially a negative review by a competing evangelical husband-and-wife team. They don't appear to be academics at all.

jps (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see how are professors whose expertise lies in communications, the sociology of religion or English literature would not be well qualified to comment on this kind of topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I think the first two are good choices. I question the English professors, but my biggest concern is the motivational speakers. jps (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes including motivational speakers don't make a lot of sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What expertise does an English literature professor bring to the table and why are they qualified to comment? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that they're experts on books... Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet if I gave them a quantum mechanics book they don't say much of use! They are perhaps experts on style, but not necessarily the substance of a book, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Their approach is interesting, but it's polemical and not explicitly academic. They are writing a kind of criticism of Evangelical views on celibacy from a perspective of the faithful believer upset with the way the religious movement has generally adopted certain tropes. Their book is one of the better ones on the subject of this book, but it isn't exactly scholarly. More of a lament. jps (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and reorganized. I think we have two academics who have basically written scholarly work on the subject and not much more. The rest of the commentary I put in a new Christian response section with Famous Readers and Professional Critics and Reviews making up the rest. jps (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now confirmed that the final two are Christian Studies professors, but I don't think they are writing from an academic perspective in their commentary on the book. Just my opinion, though. I'd like to hear other ideas. jps (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lede

The Lede as currently written does not include any summary of the academic discourse that has been written on the book. I think that this is a problem. jps (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lede also identifies the Petersons as "American college professors". I cannot find a citation for that. They have spoken at colleges and have taught a course together, but I don't think that qualifies them as "college professors". Do we have a source that indicates this? jps (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't understand the nuances of US university/college terminology, but it didn't take me long to find this, listing Dwight Peterson as Professor of New Testament, and Margaret Kim Peterson as Associate Professor of Theology, at Eastern University. Does this help? Bencherlite^Talk 16:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good citation. I think it might be more appropriate to call them "American seminary professors"? jps (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Christian studies professors", as has already been implemented, seems like a more accurate description. Neelix (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about weighting sources and POV

I think we need to think about summarizing or culling some sources here. Right now, the opinions are unduly weighted towards Christians and people who accept the authors' claims about Christian morality and that means the article has a distinct point-of-view due to this over-coverage and is not "neutral". We have a few sources which are more dispassionate, but only a few and our reliance on so many Christian sources is an obvious indication of non-neutrality, even if there are generally a dearth of sources. A way to address this ongoing issue might be to shorten the discussion of the Christian opinions. Until something is done about the weighting issue, the article will need to remain tagged and hopefully we can either find a way to properly weight the sources or to adjust the article so it is neutral in some other fashion. jps (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What specific edits do you propose to make? Your statement that "the article will need to remain tagged" until it coincides with your views on its content is rather arrogant. I've just removed Template:Third-party which you added as this is not an appropriate use of it - this is intended for situations where there's a direct link between the sources and the subject (which, in this context, would need to be something like the authors or their publishers and friends), and no evidence has been posted to suggest that this is a problem here. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also reverted your change to a sub-heading which was rather long-winded as well as non-neutral and inaccurate given that some of the authors quoted are critical of the book's message. I'd suggest that this change actually moved the article away from FA status. I'm not a fan of the other long-winded sub-heading you recently added, but it does seem accurate. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are at least two ways to deal with this that I can see: 1) cull much of the article and attempt summary style as one possible option, 2) find more sources so that it isn't overly weighted to Christian perspectives. I only say that the tag should remain in place because the last tag I placed was removed without much discussion. My concern is that we don't have enough competent editors here and the hope is that the tag may attract others to help. jps (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:WEIGHT reads as follows: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In the published, reliable sources about this book, Christian views on this book are far more prominent than other views on this book. To cull much of the article so that only half of the information is from a Christian perspective would be to go against WP:WEIGHT. Also, insulting other editors by calling them incompetent is not a useful method of achieving consensus. The tag should be removed. Neelix (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, prominence is not measured on the basis of bulk but rather on the basis of reliability. A published journal article in a scholarly journal is more WEIGHTY than devotional literature as far as reliable sourcing goes for describing a book and the attendant context. We have basically TWO scholarly monographs: one by Gardner and one by Irby. The rest of the sources are not very reliable for anything but the opinions of the authors and arguing that they deserve more prominence is exactly the OPPOSITE of what WP:WEIGHT is explaining. The entire point of WP:WEIGHT is that while, for example, creationists may have oodles to say about a particular subject and maybe even have more verbiage written on the subject, their collective complaints do not stand in WP:PARITY with the facts of scientific consensus. Likewise here, the pablum of Christian navel-gazing about this book does not deserve as much WEIGHT as the scholarly work on this subject. jps (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

JPS, your sense of naval gazing suggests that any other book article only relying on views from people who care about is naval gazing as well (for example articles like Subculture: the Meaning of Style), and that other communities need to critique in order to create less undue weight. That seems like a very tall order, especially when groups outside the publishing industry critiquing books in reliable sources is becoming rarer and rarer. It is admirable that this articles relies on a community of commentary in sources deemed relevant by that community (Christian commentary circles). We have created a balance where sources exist, but forcing removal of the commentary by the community that cares, is creating undue weight on your own perspectives. Neelix has a point: you seem to be pushing for a ideologically neutral position instead of a encyclopedic position based on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, Sadads (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't care really care what the ideological bent is of the commentators, I just think that the weighting of this article is away from neutrality because it emphasizes the Christian commentary even as there is commentary that is from the academic study of the context of this book. That this commentary is not being highlighted as the best sources on the subject is problematic. jps (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is neutral enough that it does not warrant the tag, so I removed it. Tags should generally not be used in edge cases such as this one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Broad-ranging tags should only be applied to featured articles, and especially recent ones, if there's widespread support for the concerns raised. That isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the Baptist Standard act as a reliable source for whether someone is a youth expert?

No.

jps (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not? It looks like a reliable source to me. Neelix (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. I would tread carefully if we were citing it on religious or scientific topics, but I see no reason why it cannot be cited to show somebody is a youth expert (which is all we are using it to do). —Cliftonian (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense: "experts on youth" would be someone who actually studied youth seriously as a scholar or was a professional with, for example, licensure in teaching, counseling, or child psychology. These are serious areas of study and are not verifiable by the Baptist standard. jps (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why the source cannot be used to say he's a youth expert in a Christian context. We're not saying he's a psychologist, a teacher, a scholar or a counsellor. Perhaps as a compromise we can say he works with Christian youth, or something like that. I'm sure there's something we can all live with here. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If he is a youth pastor, we should say that's what he is. "Expert" is a protected term and denotes something very different. jps (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 on that decision, Sadads (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes in this context when the source says expert it seems to be used as a byword for "works with the youth", IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Paintings

While I actually think the paintings are good additions to the article, one thing is bothering me. Many of the textual edits are centered around keeping close to sources. Do we have any sources which explicitly connect the paintings with the book? Are these paintings found in the book? If not, on what basis are they connected to the book? Sure the book mentions some of the subjects of the paintings, but does the book mention the scene in particular that they paintings are enacting? Does the book support this kind of presentation of such scenes? Are we including original research by connecting these paintings and not others to this book? jps (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, on Wikipedia there is always a small degree of original research because of paraphrasing, article structure and so on. While I can see where you're coming from I can't help but think deeming the images original research comes close to judging the vast majority of images on Wikipedia to be such. Who decided which picture to put in the infobox at, say, Napoleon? Why this picture and not one of many others?

On the other hand, I do agree that the pictures we use here should represent specific scenes that the book might discuss, rather than the story as a whole. Perhaps it might be an improvement if we provide an inline citation in each image caption to the where the book discusses the particular scene depicted (presuming it does)? —Cliftonian (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This would be a good start. I find the particular choice of genre of art to be worthy of query as well. I think there should be some justification for it. Why not something a bit more contemporary, for example? jps (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Neptune's Pool with Sirens.

I do not think that the above issues really fall under WP:OR which is presenting ideas which are not present in the source. They can easily fall under WP:NPOV where particular selections of content or spins or word choices can make significant differences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are ideas being presented (that these pictures are somehow connected to the book) that I don't think we have sources for, but your point is well-taken. jps (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My issue with the current images and captions is that there is no "to what end?" - OK, Lundy references the story of the sirens ... and what does he say about it? That men shouldn't put themselves in the place of temptation? That they should actively put themselves in a place of temptation but have their buddies around to pull them away against their will? That women are whores trying to break your vow of monogamy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the book as I'm reading it is that it actually doesn't explain to what end most of the points it discusses are being made. It's not exactly a treatise or even organized to be much more than a devotional self-help book. I think the idea was to write a work that was as accessible to as many Evangelicals and morally conservative Americans as possible, and beyond that one was to draw one's own conclusions in much the same way that most devotional literature works. To that end, my reading is (note: not actual quotes): "Men in the world will be tempted by sluts and whores, so they should impose constraints before temptations hit them so that they will remain faithful." and "Men of ill-repute will try to get married women to cheat on their husbands, but godly women should remain steadfast and faithful." jps (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The images depict specific scenes described in the book. I have added page references to the image captions as recommended. The images currently used in the article are the best representations I have been able to find of the stories Eric Ludy tells, but I would be glad for recommendations of alternatives. The image above (File:Bruxelles - Schaerbeek - Piscine Neptunium - Mosaïque et sirènes à l'entrée.JPG) does not depict Ulysses and therefore is less evocative of the story as written in the book. The purpose of the stories is explained in the body text, but could be added to the image captions if there is consensus to do so. The purpose of the story depicted in the first image is as follows: "Normally, those who force themselves to resist premarital sexual and romantic temptations are likely to find the process torturous (like Ulysses), while those who listen to the plans God has for them find waiting for marriage much easier (as it was for Orpheus's crew)." For the story behind the second image, the purpose is as follows: "One should be faithful to one's future spouse even if it appears that they will never arrive." Neelix (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bowing out

It's clear from the amount of resistance I'm getting that people are not interested in addressing my concerns in a serious way. Wikipedia is run by mob rule and in this case the mob is opposed to me. Fine. I'll step aside and let you guys celebrate your victory. To be sure, my beef is not with those who wrote this article or who did their due diligence in getting it to featured status. They have done me a favor in showing me that the featured articles system is no longer about whether or not articles are actually well-written or high-quality or the kinds of articles one might expect in a serious reference work. jps (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I'm saddened you feel that way as I thought we were making some progress. I hope you will come back one day. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, we were making progress, but I truly believe that the FA-status was getting in the way. People remove tags on the basis of the fact the article is featured, for example, and I felt palpable resistance to improving the article because of its status. However, trying to remove that problem created more issues, and it has become clear to me that people see FA as a sacred protection pact for articles. Really unfortunate. In any case, I hope you guys figure out how to improve the article without me. You need to, for example, think carefully about context issues. The article provides almost no context as it is, and that needs to be rectified. Good luck. jps (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue comes down to what we can glean from sources as policy binds us to not engaging in original research. Your concerns are valid, but they are more a concern with how such books are covered outside Wikipedia. I removed the tag in part because Wolfie took the step of adding Irby and other changes were made that go some ways in addressing your concerns without resorting to original research. Most of the commentary is from Christian sources and there is plenty of criticism, even if much of it is lighter criticism than Irby. Being a featured article was only a concern in the sense that there was general approval of this article being featured and appearing on the front page so a tag misrepresents the consensus view of the article's quality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"They have done me a favor in showing me that the featured articles system is no longer about whether or not articles are actually well-written or high-quality or the kinds of articles one might expect in a serious reference work." If you think that's the case you're even worse than I'd thought. Just because you believe one article isn't neutral or as good as it could be doesn't mean a thing. Every article is different. Your comment I find utterly disgraceful to genuine editors and reviewers who put a lot of time and work into FA to produce something of the highest order.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential FAR needed

As per virtually every other comment on this talkpage, this is less a sourced and reliable article, than a book advertisement largely shorn of context masquerading as a featured article. Although it has a lot of references, virtually every source used is within a small walled garden of Christian self-help literature (often by the same authors), with little if any independent coverage. (I have no objection the the Christian press being used as a source on how a piece of Christian literature was received—they're obviously both more likely to be interested, and more qualified to point out theological issues—but there appears to be very little other than routine coverage.)

These issues were raised previously and the FAR was closed procedurally as it was too near to the original FA promotion. It's now been seven years, and the issues have yet to be addressed, and given that both the original author and the original GA reviewer (and initial FAC supporter) are former long-term-abuse cases who are long since gone from Wikipedia, they're unlikely to be addressed unless someone else takes on the job. ‑ Iridescent 07:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)