Talk:The Cartoon History of the Universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board. | ||
| ??? | This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Bias issues
Sigh... I hate to admit it, but I think this page's a little too biased. One can all too easily tell by reading it that the authors like it. There are plenty of POV words like "exuberant," "hilarious" and "enthusiastic." From my experience, those who dislike Gonick would not consider the info accurate. Brutannica 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
After examining the page a little more, I think the POV is obvious and correction is urgent. Brutannica 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I corrected the neutrality issues; please note.
Also note that the word "exuberant," as now used, describes behavior neutrally (child-like "exuberance," as opposed to adult-like sobriety.
Good call noticing my bias. Certainly wasn't intended when I wrote it.
Matt Genné 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would probably describe this in much the same fashion as you did, but I've encountered enough negative evaluation of The Cartoon History of the Universe to see the other point of view (somewhat). Brutannica 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As a final question, where did you find the information about the latest book in the series? Brutannica 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I found the release info for the new Cartoon History at Amazon.com. Matt Genné 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, someone's posted the neutrality sticker again. Any ideas on removing the bias even further? (It still lingers...) Brutannica 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- see below Matt Genné 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citations section
To provide a rationale for the subheading "Unorthodox citations" in an earlier edit:
I first of all feel that readers may encounter a problem if they read the TOC and see the subhead "Citations"; they will think that this is the article's bibliography. "Unorthodox citations" labels this section more accurately. The whole upshot of this section is that Gonick's bibligraphy in each Cartoon History is indeed unorthodox. Details are provided therein. Also, "unorthodox" is a neutral word. It simply reports and acknowledges an observable fact.
I haven't reverted it, though, because I'd like to know if this Talk page agrees. Matt Genné 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh. O.K., I guess that makes sense. Brutannica 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I'll change it for now; perhaps a different word will present itself later... Matt Genné 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible criticism?
"Critics may try...", "They might suggest...", and the most recent edits "...many readers". Can we get some citations here instead of the editors' opinions & original research?--Son of Somebody 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I read some of these criticisms on amazon.com reviews -- do those count? Brutannica 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Books by Larry Gonick"
Do we really need this section? I mean, you can just go on over to Larry Gonick and read the list there. Brutannica 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asterix
quote:
"When Gauls are depicted, they often look suspiciously similar to the René Goscinny characters Asterix and Obelix. See The Cartoon History of the Universe, Volume II, pages 158, 172, 173, 183, and 277"
... suspiciously similar? asterix and obelix actually make a cameo and asterix says something like "come on obelix, let's make our own comic" ... i'll need to re-read to check the exact phrase and page, it's a very nice tribute :) that shouldn't go unnoticed :).
[edit] "Possible criticisms"
Ideally this section would contain actual criticisms. Brutannica 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Originally, I used the modifier "possible" because the criticisms therein were rhetorical, in a devil's-advocate effort to represent all POVs. They are, admittedly, evolving. What do you think of the current solution, then? Matt Genné 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV label
What's with the NPOV label? This article goes to great pains to remain neutral. The NPOV poster indicated that the article seems like an advertisement. Give me a break! Just because the article is thoughtfully written, and the subject matter is compelling, does not make it an advertisement.
By the NPOV poster's standard, any Wiki-notable subject that happens to be in print or on the market could be considered an advertisement.
Matt Genné 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that the editors of this page would be happy to address any specific neutrality issues. However, the most recent NPOV-label poster did not offer any. "Sounds like an advertisement" is an insufficient rationale without specifics. So I'm removing the NPOV label.
Editors work hard at developing this page's content. It's not enough to simply slap on a tag without a specific rationale—without explaining how and why this page violates neutrality.
Matt Genné 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
