Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:55, 30 April 2012

Christianity C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: United States C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Creationism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives

Talk:Chick_Publications Up to December 2010

Chick Publications Navbox

Hi everyone,

I have created a navbox, {{Chick Publications Navbox}}, with the purpose of holding pages related to Chick Publications.

There used to be a category for this. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 19#Category:Chick Publications.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing lengthy tract summaries

This article contained on overly lengthy summary of a multitude of Chick Tracts. The source for all of these summaries was indicated as being the publisher's own website. This source can not be considered WP:RS or WP:THIRDPARTY. The summaries themselves were not summaries provided by the publisher nor were they referenced to a third party source. Instead, they were individual editor's interpretation of the various tracts. That is considered synthesis, which is a clear violation of original research (WP:OR). With that stated, I will again remove the summaries. --192.91.171.36 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm readding it and suggesting that you read the section again. Other than that it may be a bit overly long, nothing you said was accurate.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my assertions are indeed accurate. For the vast majority of the cites listed in that section all point to the Chick Publications website, where the particular tract in question can be viewed. Just so you know, I'm going to remove the section again, and you can ask a for third party comment/intervention. ---192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read it again, as I already said. In addition, such large scale deletions, unless violations of BLP policy, which this is not, are to be discussed BEFORE done. It is basically a policy violation to delete such a volume of the article without first discussing it. Because of this, I will give you an opportunity to self-revert as is proper. Then if you feel the need to find a third party, that burden actually falls with you.Farsight001 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read it first. The section is primary sourced, with no independent 3rd party secondary sources and totally WP:OR in all wikipedia sense. It is no use keep asking others to read it again just because they don't share your view point. The burden of prove falls on the person who created and added material, not the one removing the unsourced materials. The burden of prove NEVER falls to the side that claimed something does not exist, but to the side that something exists. See below for the 3rd party source I found to support some of the summary, but not all of it. If you really want to keep the summaries, find your own 3rd party source and not stick to the primary sources that showed NO notability in this article. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 06:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy OR summaries

Do lengthy comic tract summaries that only rely on the comics themselves (provided by the publisher's website) constitute a version WP:OR due to synthesis? Also it should be noted that pages on other comic books do not contain lengthy summaries of individual issues as part of the main article. --192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Original Research. WP:PLOTSUM#Citations may be a useful reference. From the essay:

Citations about the work of fiction generally (that is, cites addressing the commentary, impact or other real-world relevance of the work) are secondary sources no different from citations of non-fictional topics. All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source.

Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself. For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work. For consolidated articles discussing a work published or broadcast in a serial form, a citation to the individual episode is appropriate to help readers to verify the summary. Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. While consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right.

Regarding the level of detail of the summaries:

The description should be thorough enough that the reader gets a sense of what happens and can fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it. On the other hand, the plot summary must be concise because Misplaced Pages's coverage of works of fiction should be about more than just the plot. Overly long and thorough plot summaries are also hard to read and end up being as unhelpful as overly short ones. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion.

All that being said, if the citations are to the publisher's website, even though the summaries clearly don't stem from them, the citations need to be changed to the actual comic tracts (the actual summaries can remain, as long as they are accurately and objectively describing the plots).--RSLxii 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Me again--I took a closer look at the citations and the summary. The citations look perfectly fine--they are all pointing to the tracts themselves. The summaries, however, have too much variation--the summary of the Bible tracts is little more than a list, while each of the "Other Tracts" has a 3-line summary. "This was your life", "That Crazy Guy!", "Somebody Loves Me/Trust Me", and "Dark Dungeons" have, for some unknown reason, been singled out for detailed recounting (there may be good reason for the special treatment given to these tracts, but if there is, mention what that reason is somewhere just before the summaries). Given how many tracts there have been, I agree that a summary for each and every tract is a bit excessive. I leave it to you editors to find the appropriate middle ground of simplicity and detail, while maintaining a stylistic uniformity among all the tract summaries. --RSLxii 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note: Some of the tracts summaries have the occasional editorial comment inserted in (eg. "Dark Dungeons is one of Chick's most satirized tracts." "Chick opposes Christians celebrating Halloween, and several of his tracts purport to tell a link between Halloween and Satanism."). These types of comments *MUST* use a citation other than the comic itself! Otherwise, these types of statements should be removed. --RSLxii 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

<humor>Feel free to delete this section:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

</humor>--Kevinkor2 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Either this is totally not notable or the article is giving way too much weight on the plot summaries.

I see 4 3rd party independent secondary sources, and tons of primary sources. The quality of this article is extremely poor if we are talking about wikipedia standards in WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. The whole article, is simply WP:OR. The very first section, with 5 paragraphs in it, contained original synthesis including the first paragraph using a primary source that showed God's visible face to source basically ONLY the last sentence. The second source is one of the 4 secondary source in the whole super lengthy article, which showed that the topic of the article is quite potentially a notable one, yet more of these kind of sources are needed. The rest of the article are sections of plot summary, all primary source except for 3 other, two are pretty much just plain unreliable (97&101), and 102 is not much better, it is only a comic done by a !church, to be honest, the link learn more in it seemed to be a much better source. In fact, those mentioned in that page is much more worthy in the WP:NPOV about this page, it labelled the tracts as hate literature, which this article currently seriously needs. The fact is, this article is totally biased. It did not even show any of the views of other Christian groups, which should not be too hard to find. It showed no sources of views of other people from other religions, which, judging from the appearance of different parody and attack on the material, should be even easier to source than the views from other Christian groups, which I found one (non Christian labeled by the article's subject) by simply googling Chick tract controversy. I have little knowledge on this, I never read any of these before until I came over it here. I saw the discussion above and noticed quite some people pointed out the problems of this article, and I have the same view on it, and is stunted to see the article is still in such shape. A lot of fictional stories with reasonably decent notability have better articles with much less plot summaries than this one. The most ironic thing might be, the Dungeons & Dragons controversies article is better sourced than this article. Either this topic is totally not notable and thus no body found any reliable source through out these years, or editors are so biased and chose not to improve the article. This must be changed. I suggest removing the major monstrous plot summary sections and leaving only those that can be sourced from reliable 3rd party secondary sources.(like the Catholic one up there) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the amount of primary source material is excessive (with related WP:SYNTH/WP:OR problems). Google News turns up a few hits that might help provide secondary coverage, but I suspect some major pruning would be appropriate. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problem is the lack of RS that exists. Most people either don't know about the tracts, or consider them such vile hatred that they don't merit writing about. I've been all for merging this and the Jack Chick and Chick Publications articles together which I think would help with sourcing issues, but it just never gained any momentum.Farsight001 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging sounds right. If no one opposes this idea in like 5~7 days, just merge it, it is the consensus. Lacking in RS is, in fact, a hint of it being not notable enough. From the few summaries here, I see that it attracts controversy mainly because of its extremist nature, and probably you are right, most people either don't know(like me), or they simply don't write about it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 08:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make a formal proposal and gain a clear consensus, per WP:MERGE, before merging. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to Roman Catholicism

The section Tracts opposing Roman Catholicism has a "neutrality disputed" warning. I'm not going to look into all the claims there, but at least the first two are reasonably supported. From the section:

The Last Generation and The Beast are apocalyptic tracts which warn that Christians will soon face persecution at the hands of a brutal planetary regime installed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Here are relevant quotes from the text of these two tracts, including the Bible chapter and verse numbers:

1. The Last Generation, first two pages
   • Near Future:NEWS BULLETIN
     • :
       "From the World Court headquarters in Rome... Stand by as Supreme Justice Mahoney, S.J. addresses the world."
   • :
     "It is the decision of this court... Anyone who claims that...
   • :
     "...Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father in Heaven shall be committed to a mental camp for treatment and or... be executed! ALL who oppose this new law are officially enemies of the state!"
2. The Beast, p.10:
   • Satan raises up a leader that the world will love. (Revelation 13:8)
   • This "man of peace" stabilizes the world economy and pulls the religions of the world together. (Daniel 11:36)
   • He demands total loyalty. He is Satan's masterpiece and he rules from the Vatican.

Thnidu (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure that Chick's anti-Catholicism is fairly well known and fairly widely reported upon -- it shouldn't be too difficult to rustle up a WP:SECONDARY source stating this, rather than synthesising the point directly from his tracts. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Through most of American history, anti-Catholicism has been an exceedingly potent force that often shaped political allegiances. Through the end of the nineteenth century, many Americans believed their country had a specially ordained role in divine providence, and specifically religious critiques of Catholicism enjoyed real force. At least through the nineteenth century, many Protestants accepted that the Roman church was the monstrous creature prophesied in the Book of Revelation, Babylon the great, the "mother of harlots" clothed in purple and scarlet, who held in her hand "a golden cup full of abominations." The Pope, evidently, was the Antichrist. American publishers poured forth books and pamphlets with hair-raising titles such as The Trial of the Pope of Rome: The Antichrist, or man of sin ... for high treason against the son of God.

Though now rarely heard in respectable discourse, these ideas have never entirely vanished, and they survive today. Isolated propagandists continue to circulate anti-papal and anti-Catholic mythologies, presenting the Church as the hidden hand behind the world's governments and financial systems. The best-known such activist is Jack Chick, whose tracts and comics continue to promulgate bizarre allegations of Catholic conspiracy and sexual hypocrisy.

— Jenkins, Philip (2004). The New Anti-Catholicism. City: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 24. ISBN 9780195176049.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Burack, Cynthia (2008). Sin, Sex, and Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 33–66. ISBN 0791474054. has a whole chapter on Chick tracts.
• Fowler, Robert (2001). The World of Chick?. San Francisco: Last Gasp. ISBN 0867195126. "Robert Fowler has created an exhaustive index and summation of Chick’s works, examining their history as well as the views of this maverick Christian fundamentalist cartoonist. Under the guise of a collector’s resource, this book analyzes each Chick tract in detail with essential information about content and circulation."
• Los Angeles Magazine May 2003, pp56 & 58.
• 'Jesus was Not a Weak Fairy: Chick Tracts and the Visual Culture of Evangelical Fear', chapter in Bivins, Jason (2008). Religion of fear : the politics of horror in conservative evangelicalism. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 41–88. ISBN 9780195340815.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some from Talk:Chick_Publications/Archive_3:

• Borer, Michael. (2007) "Drawing Religious Battle Lines: The “Culture Wars Work” of Jack Chick’s Anti-Catholic Cartoons" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007

• Borer, Michael Ian; Adam Murphree (2008) "Framing Catholicism: Jack Chick's Anti-Catholic Cartoons and the Flexible Boundaries of the Culture Wars" Religion and American Culture Winter 2008, Vol. 18, No. 1, Pages 95–112 (might be the same as above not sure)

• Cearley, GD (2006) Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam

• Massa, Mark M. (2003) "The "Death Cookie" and Other "Catholic Cartoons": Jack Chick and the Vatican Conspiracy against "Gospel Christianity"" U.S. Catholic Historian, Vol. 21, No. 4, Anti-Catholicism (Fall, 2003), pp. 63-78

With stuff like that tell me again why are merging to this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How many of those sources discuss the topic of 'Chick Publications' beyond simply talking about Chick tracts? That is "why" a merger here is more appropriate -- as I pointed out in my original merge proposal. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge here. -- Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I can find no evidence that Chick Publications has any notability other than for Chick tracts (there is little or no information on the "DVDs, VCDs, videos, books, and posters"), I'm proposing that that article be merged here, per WP:MERGE criteria 'Overlap'. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article can be merged to Jack Chick if the few independent sources you list up there are the only ones. Jack Chick's article can cover all these sources without overwhelming that article and this article basically talks about his major work and why he is notable to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages anyway. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'd rather see Chick Publications merged here, and then see how much third-party-based material can be written on the tracts themselves, before deciding on whether to merge with Jack T. Chick. For one thing, I suspect that the tracts may actually be better known than their rather reclusive creator, meaning that a merge to here, rather than to the biography, may be more appropriate. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

reasonable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Chick Publications is the better article in terms of structure and information so what was here should be merged into that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Section titles & NPOV

I propose to rename the headings "Anti-Catholicism", "Anti-gay" and "Tracts opposing other religions" to "Catholicism" "Homosexuality" and "Tracts on other religions" to maintain a NPOV stance as much as possible. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Please don't tack new proposals onto 3 year old threads.
2. Given that the tracts themselves are blatantly anti-, anti- and opposing, and are described as such by reliable third-party sources, calling them such in the titles would appear to be simply WP:SPADE, and no violation of WP:NPOV.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than users voluntarily indenting their own posts, Misplaced Pages is not threaded by section heading, and I placed no indentation on my post so as to indicate that it was a new thread. Using diffs can help find posts if they are not placed at the bottom of the page.

Your citation of WP:SPADE does not apply to article building. It is an "Essay on civility" and it has counterparts such as Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade and Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black which are also specifically about civility and inter-editor relations, not articles. They are not policy or even guidelines, they are non-binding essays. That's why contradicting versions are allowed to exist. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. I only suggested to change the headings, not the text within. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Your comment had nothing (other than the section-title) in common with the contents of that section. That section ('thread' in my earlier comment -- the words are roughly synonymous in this context) was very, very, VERY old. So tacking a new proposal onto it 'serves no good purpose.
2. WP:SPADE states: "To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly." To take your first point as an example, Chick's tracts are rabidly and bigotedly (and thus completely unambiguously) anti-Catholic. They have been described by a source, specifically on the subject of anti-Catholicism, as "bizarre allegations of Catholic conspiracy and sexual hypocrisy" to perpetuate "anti-papal and anti-Catholic mythologies". It is thus describing them clearly and directly to characterise them as anti-Catholic -- as this is how the source does (and any reasonable observer would) describe them. This is no way conflicts within WP:NPOV -- that they are anti-Catholic is an "uncontested assertion" so we need not, and should not, present it as "mere opinion" (WP:YESPOV). And in fact it is directly congruent with the MOS principle of 'least surprise' (as it means the reader is never under any false impression that Chick might be supportive of Catholicism).

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE does, and so does WP:WEASEL. Wekn reven i susej eht 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They are fine in the form which tells the simple truth: he is anti- all these things, regularly and with great venom. WP:NOT#CENSORED also applies. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion gets too unproductive, I guess WP:IGNORE might apply as well. Wekn reven i susej eht 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chick Publications article has much better references with regards to these claims and the merge should be to THAT article not the other way around especially as its talk pages are far more useful to future editors..--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Belated opposition to the merger

BruceGrubb seems to be attempting to reverse the merger after the fact. I would like to point out that:

• There was a merger discussion, fully compliant with WP:MERGE, that resulted in a consensus to merge.
• That as Chick Publications, except for vestigial unsourced mention of "DVDs, VCDs, videos, books, and posters" is wholly about Chick Tracts, so the merged article properly belongs here.
• Neither article is particularly well-sourced (as tags on both indicate), and in any case it is no great difficulty in adding sourced material and/or structure from that article here.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chick Publication's may be better know for their tracks but they do indeed publish DVDs and books (There is also a reference to this in Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1 By Roger Chapman pg 84).

For instance, the highly inaccurate The Prophet comic (Hodapp,, Christopher; Von Kannon, Alice (2008), Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies, For Dummies, p. 105) is published by as references in in the Criticism section of Chick Publications showed (which BTW proves the claim that the Chick Publications article "is wholly about Chick Tracts" to be inaccurate). Also "the vast majority of the rest seems to be primary-source-only and/or synthesis" claim in the merge edit can also be shown to be inaccurate.

Other sources that talk about Chick Publications (rather than Chick Tracts) are Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9, Satanism today: an encyclopedia of religion, folklore, and popular culture by James R. Lewis (2010) pg 26, Booker, Keith (2010) Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels ABC-CLIO Page 163, Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing Face of Christian Communication, and many others.

Furthermore while I have long said Chick Publications, Jack Chick, and this do need to be merged (back when this was little more than a summery of the various tracts) Chick Publication is clearly the better article as there are far more third party references there then here and better examples of how it is not just the tracks that have problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That their non-tract publications WP:EXISTS does not mean that they have any notability. And the dismissive mere mention of them in Chapman certainly does not add notability. In fact it does not even mention the production company at all. The production company is a nonentity notability-wise -- the only two rival loci of notability being the tracts and the man himself -- with most of the emphasis placed on the tracts. I have no problem with addition of third-party sourced information from Chick Publications, but see no point whatsoever in having this article merged-and-redirected into that article, when that article talks as-near-to-exclusively-as-makes-no difference about this topic. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And kindly leave off the useless company external links. Either link to Google books or simply cite the ISBN. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Lewis titles the section 'Chick Publications', all that he says about the company is "Chick Publications is a conservative Christian publishing ministry obsessed with Satan's machinations" and "Chick Publications were dropped from the shelves of many Christian bookstores after the Alberto series ... Sales of ministry products subsequently rebounded enough to keep Chick Publications in business." The coverage of the company is heavily subordinated to the coverage of the tracts and the man. I can find no evidence of the existence of a "Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9" (though it presumably does exist, as later volumes do), let alone one that mentions "Chick Publications". 06:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you but not everything has either a google book reference or has a ISBN and neither denotes WP:RS; this is fact on one the problems the Weston Price article has--the material exists only in snippet or no preview form and is so old that no ISBN even exists for it.

The fact that your looking for "Chick Publications Cyberspace lawyer" in Google books didn't produce the "Finally, a February 5, 2004 letter from Chick Publications, Inc. to OSP System Management Enterprise, Inc (a Web hosting company) claimed that <www.howardhallis.com>, a comedy and comic-book site, contained copyrighted artwork created" snippet that my search did shows that you're not fully aware of some of the more annoying limitations of Google books (like you can get different previews of books from different locations or even from the same location at different times). This is why I don't use the blasted thing for wikipedia references--it isn't reliable enough that what I get is the same thing someone else will get or even what I will get at a different time.

I should mention by this silly logic would be one of these "useless company external links" you talk about (which would get laughs and face-palming over on the WP:RS noticeboard).

In any case I am going to take the more relevant bits and paste them here where we can work on them rather than throw the baby out with the bath water situation we currently have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"This may come as a shock to you but" I don't assume that "everything has either a google book reference or has a ISBN" -- though I would suspect that any book that lacks either is probably unpublished, and so is most likely not a WP:RS. I do however assume that one or other (which via Google Books or Amazon has at least some probability of letting me look at the relevant passage) will be of more use in determining what the book actually says about a topic and getting some initial idea as to its reliability, than reading a publisher's blurb. I did not look for "Chick Publications Cyberspace lawyer" in my "vaulted Google books" (I did not know that Google went in for architecture), but in their general search (the first place most people would look for mention of something with no useful citation attached). "" tells me nothing whatsoever about any given book (not even that it was published by Wiley) -- so is indeed useless in this context. ISBN 0471312789 on the other hand, via its links, quickly lets me find out that Wiley published this book, and allows me to access its text. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ISBN has nothing to do with WP:RS; Galloway, Thomas C. M.D. (1957) "Relation of Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy to Poliomtyelitis" JAMA. 1957;163(7):519-521 for instance is a totally reliable source for the state of tonsillectomy in 1957 but since ISBN didn't even exist until 1966 the 1957 JAMA can't have a ISBN unless one is retroactively assigned to it.

The short lived Electronic Journal of Theoretical Chemistry published by Wiley in 1996-1997 has no ISBN (because it never existed in book form) but it would still be as reliable source for Theoretical Chemistry of that time period.

This is not mentioning totally electronic peer-reviewed publications like the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology who is linked to by Adams State College who has the following accreditations: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC) Accreditation, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE); Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation firmly establishing it as a reliable source despite it not having a ISBN (because it is well electronic and doesn't exist in book form)

In fact, ISBN.org clearly states "The purpose of the ISBN is to establish and identify one title or edition of a title from one specific publisher and is unique to that edition, allowing for more efficient marketing of products by booksellers, libraries, universities, wholesalers and distributors."

From what you are saying it looks like you are confusing ISSN and doi with ISBN; they are NOT the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "any book ... is probably unpublished, and so is most likely not a WP:RS" (that is what the B in ISBN stands for after all -- so I have no idea why you're bringing ISSN in) -- though I should have qualified that with 'written in the last 40 years' (though in many fields >40yo may be reason to distrust as well). And it was links-to-books that was under discussion. Please learn the difference between a book and a journal article before attempting to educate me on anything at all. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Master and PhD thesis are published but don't generally have ISBNs and they can be reliable sources. My own Guidelines for museum computerization and its utilization (1993) is a case in point--it was peer reviewed, got unanimous approval, and was used in two professional museum presentations. And yet it has no ISBN and it is less than 40 years old. This is ignoring that (in the US at least) anyone can plunk down $150 and get an ISBN. Face it, the idea that these is some connection between ISBN and WP:RS null and void.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Masters theses are generally not considered WP:RS, last I saw the subject discussed on WP:RSN. Even PhD theses aren't too highly thought of there. And I said "probably" not definitely. Are you finished dissecting my statement for minutiae yet? Or should I bring a lawyer with me any time I make a fairly casual statement on article talk, just in case I haven't patched every possible loophole? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're still avoiding my main contention--that there is no relationship between ISBN and source being reliable. It is a good reference tool but it has problems--like being a total train wreck in the e-book world ((""E-book ISBN Mess Needs Sorting Out," Say UK Publishers" for a sampling of that mess).

The other is ISBN is not always used constantly as I have books from several of the professional organizations I belonged to in my personal library and NONE of these books has an ISBN: three from the American Museum Association (1993), one by the Texas Association of Museums (1995), and two by the Association of Midwest Museums (1995, 2000)

Publications from the US government that are designed to be given to the public is another example. Publication 17 by the IRS in 2010 has no ISBN but then you have the 2008 U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual with ISBN 978–0–16–081813–4 which barfed when I put into three look by ISBN engines (yes, I did look for it as 9780160818134) including Amazon. It's embarrassing when IBSN search engines can't find a book published by the US government. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the ISBN doesn't it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Response:

1. It has just occurred to me that the question of whether an ISBN is related to WP:RS is irrelevant to my original request.
2. I am therefore striking all my responses to your ridiculously WP:DEADHORSE "main contention", and rephrasing my original request as follows:

IF a book that you are citing has an ISBN, then please provide it (or a Google Books link as a frequently-used-by-Misplaced Pages-editors-alternative), as the easiest means of uniquely identifying a book and finding it online (if it is not a book, or for some other reason lacks an ISBN, then please provide an equivalent unique identifier). Publishers' blurbs are generally promotional and as such generally do little to provide pertinent information.

Happy now? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack T Chick Parody Archive back but now blacklisted-do we need it?

The URL for the Jack T Chick Parody Archive for a while went to some porn site with some malware. The author explains in his blog what happened but I have to ask is it worth our time to go and get this url de blacklisted so we can link to it again?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's essentially a WP:SPS, and thus not particularly reliable, so I'd suggest not bothering. Also, as such, any usage of it should comply with WP:SELFPUB, so should probably only be used about their parodies, not Chick's legal threats (making it even less attractive on a cost/benefit analysis). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sin, sex, and democracy: antigay rhetoric and the Christian right By Cynthia Burack State University of New York pg 41 ISBN: 978-0791474068 documents some of this but it's not as to the point as the site was. Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9 pg 16 (see http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ceaseanddesist.html for the guts of that point) has much the same issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New Scientist also has an article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925371.600-satirical-chick-tracts.html(subscription required) -- same example as fepproject's and states "Leaning on Howard Hallis to remove his satirical version has not helped the publishers of Chick tracts at all - far from it, it has led to the Cthulhu Chick Tract being widely talked and written about." I'd suggest that we'd be better off citing more detached and formal sources rather than the Archive's own engaged and 'colorful' commentary. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm hoping that we can rework the Criticism section stuff into the tracts section for better NPOV flow so we can get rid of it. Though we need better material to balance out some of the tracts section.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the characters?

Why was the character section deleted? --Austin Robinson 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)User: Robinsonbecky

Nearly all of it was OR and it didn't really add anything to the article.--216.31.124.78 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sikh parade

This may be nitpicking, but I was interested that they distributed a tract to a Sikh parade in Hindi, when they ought to have used Punjabi. PatGallacher (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources (nor does it apply to TALK pages)!

The "In fact, Big Daddy is presented as a "typical of the genre" example of just how "misleading and dishonest" creationist presentations are." section is a summation using actual quotes from Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624. ]

NPOV is NOT a magical censorship hammer ESPECIALLY when used to remove QUOTE and information from RELIABLE SOURCED MATERIAL. Refrain from using it as such in the future.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a central policy of Misplaced Pages, in fact, it is one of the five pillars. It applies to everything in an article. Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia (another of the five pillars), we report what is in secondary sources. That reporting should be neutral in tone. See Misplaced Pages:Npov#Impartial_tone. An article should give due weight to all legitimate viewpoints on a subject. It seems to me that the section of this article currently in question, "Anti-evolution", is dominated by a negative anti-Chick viewpoint that does not adequately describe the viewpoint of Chick and Christians who may agree with him. Please review the NPOV policy and consider adding positive material to this article - naturally, from reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Honestly, I'm not sure how one edit on my part in the creationist section is a "NPOV dispute", but maybe I'm missing something... Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, in the edit comment you claimed "Nebraska Man was not corrected in a year - not sure what "Home Sapiens" is - again, simply state that its nonsense and move on - non-NPOV fluff is unneeded (especially when it is incorrect))"

First, if you had bothered to actually READ the source sited you would have seen that EVERYTHING was backed up that UNIVERSITY PRESS book. Here are the full actual quotes:

"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are. Typical of the genre is the little pamphlet Big Daddy, published by creationist Jack Chick." pg 334

""Nebraska man," as we outlined already, was the mistake of one scientist and was corrected within a year." pg 334

WP:NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The key words there are RELIABLE SOURCES. To date I know of no pro-creationist material that fits Misplaced Pages's definition of reliable source especially as creationism has been ruled not to be a science by US courts. In fact based on my own personal experience with pro-creationist material Columbia University Press is being kind.

Second, Home Sapiens was a clear typo of Homo Sapiens

Third, you claimed the information provided in the Columbia University Press book was "incorrect" with no proof to back that claim up.

Face it, you tried to remove reliable sourced information (in a UNIVERSITY PRESS book one of the highest rankings of RS) under the guise of NPOV and got called on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My point, since you obviously missed it, was that I was wondering why one edit is a "dispute" that needs to goto Talk. Face it, I made some edits - which you have the right to disagree with and have - and instead of simply reverting the changes and putting in the extra info - like "this is an actual quote" and further textual explanations, which you did anyway - you over-reacted and chose to make a big deal about a very minor thing. Relax... Ckruschke (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

User:Elizium23 changed the title of this section from "NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources!" to "NPOV dispute". I restored the old title and slapped on "(nor does it apply to TALK pages)" so as as you can see it was NEVER a "dispute" but a comment about trying to use NPOV in a way not intended. You claimed things that were refuted by the VERY REFERENCE CITED showing that you never bothered to read the source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States comics articles
• United States comics work group articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• B-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles