Talk:What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an

Neutrality challenged?

I don't quite see how this article is deemed to not be neutral. The book itself may not be neutral in that it clearly favors the Chrisitan perspective, and the article indicates that - but a book with an opinion is different than a wikipedia article written about a book with an opinion. I think the neutrality flag should come off. Anyone have an issue with that? If so, please explain as I am at a loss to see it. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheRealSerenaJoy see below. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources and NPOV issues

There are a couple of issues with the sources. Firstly, the majority of the article text uses the book itself as a source for it. Secondly, almost the entire section on the reception is from Christian (apparently evangelical) sources. Unsurprisingly all of these sources praise the book for its criticism. We have no Muslim responses, no evaluation of it from a secular perspective. If the book has only received coverage within the evangelical community then I wonder if it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criterion.VR _talk 06:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. I only use the book as a source in the "Summary" section, and it is a common practice on other Wikipedia book articles. Yes, most of the reviews are from the evangelical community but it does not mean that the book does not worth to have its own article on Wikipedia; these reviews also provide criticism to the book, in case you were not aware of that. Yes, you are right that there is no Muslim review in this article, for there is no Muslim review to the book existing on the Internet. Is there any problem with it? I have revised the "Reception" section to get more neutralised, please take a look. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"these reviews also provide criticism to the book" what exactly is this criticism? That the book, which is already critical of Islam, was not critical enough? For example, according to the article, Wu criticizes White for "endorsing the official Islamic 'chronology'".VR _talk 07:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have tried my best. Well, the book—I should have admitted, before—lacks academic/scholarly reviews. Maybe, redirecting it will close this case. Do you agree with that? If yes, then I will immediately redirect this article to James White (theologian). —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll let someone else chime in here and see what they say. To me a book about Islam that has completely escaped notice of the entire Islamic studies field doesn't seem notable, but maybe I'm wrong. So lets wait for more opinions. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me.VR _talk 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent Agreed. I note that the support comes from the sources you’d expect. I note that “Influence” is published by the Assemblies of God. Wes Bredenhof is a Creationist.[1]. Jimmy Butts was a Masters student when he wrote that and I see no evidence it was properly published except on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. To cap it off, Colborne is self-published.[2]. Never going to get GA and I’d argue not following NPOV. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)