Talk:Raven (book)

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Cirt in topic Research section
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2008Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that multiple book reviews have referred to Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and His People as the definitive book on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple?

Additional sources to use in the article

edit
  1. "Raven". CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries: 1007. March 1, 1983.
  2. "Raven". Best Sellers: 437. February 1983.
  3. "Raven". The New York Times Book Review. 88. The New York Times Company: 9. December 26, 1982.
  4. Gold, Herbert (December 12, 1982). "Raven". Los Angeles Times. p. 2.
  5. "Raven". San Francisco Review of Books: 18. November 1, 1982.
  6. "Raven". Library Journal. 107: 1890. October 1, 1982.
  7. Goodman, Hal (October 1, 1982). "Raven". Psychology Today. 16: 84–85.
  8. "Raven". Publishers Weekly. 222: 49. September 3, 1982.
  9. "Raven". Kirkus Reviews: 985. August 15, 1982.
  10. Evanier, David (April 16, 1982). "Raven". National Review. 34: 428–430.

I will expand the article utilizing these sources and others, just won't be able to get to it immediately. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of these may be used already but there might be some additional citable material there as well, will go back and recheck later. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Research section

edit

Cirt, by the way, great job on the article.

On the Research section, if you have the book, Reiterman describes this on Preface pages xiv and xv. I can add a sentence or two, but I don't know if including Raven as a source for this sort of fact directly about the book still would run afoul of reliable sources. Also, the book contains 30 pages (pp. 581-610) of small fonted descriptions of notes and sources, including large numbers of people interviewed, documents, audio tapes, etc. Mosedschurte 05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's best if we avoid using the book itself as a primary reference as much as possible, though we can revisit that. I am trying to find other secondary sources which discuss the research for the book. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your work Cirt, your searching capabilities are apparently much stronger than my own :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply