Talk:The Brick Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The The Brick Testament article is part of WikiProject Lego, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Lego on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Content Warnings

I reverted this revision which removed the note about content warnings. The content warnings are part of the content of the pages and I believe (although I don't have a cite at this time) the author of The Brick Testament has stated they are a key part of that content (that the Bible needs nudity/violence warnings could be construed as an editorial comment on it...) I suppose that they are important to mention is my view, but I don't really see why the material was removed. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct links in first paragraph showing Brick Testament as controversial "lampoon"

I have reverted the first paragraph describing The Brick Testament to the Revision as of 17:12, 5 October 2006. This removes the sentence about the Brick Testament's "lampooning of biblical passages", the direct links to examples on the Brick Testament website, and the bit about blasphemy vs. irreverence.

While later in this article it may be appropriate to delve into specific examples of how The Brick Testament's illustrations of biblical passages can be controversial, it seems misguided to place such things in the first paragraph which should give a brief overall summary of what The Brick Testament is and why it is noteworthy.

68.161.96.11 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20070422 ;; article content and balance

Recently an editor undid modifications to this article that were done to improve its neutrality and accuracy. This action seems inappropriate and an explanation is requested. Specifically, the following items are contested and require a supporting rationale:

  • The project is set apart from other illustrated versions of the Bible
What other illustrated versions of the Bible?
Set apart in what way? According to whom?
Is there a neutral, verifiable, reliable source to support this claim?
  • ...have become popular both among some religious believers who appreciate its whimsicality and among non-Christians who view ...
(which references http://www.thebricktestament.com/churches/index.html)
The cite used to support this comes from the product vendor, how does this not violate WP:COI and WP:SPS?
The cite is *clearly* an advertisement and a request for monetary support, it is not even appropriate as a link, let alone substantiation
The cite mentions zero about "appreciating whimsicality" or customer motivations, and even if it did, those would be "product endorsements" ... inherently unencyclopedic
  • Example excerpt from Brick Testament removed from the article
Why was this excerpt removed when it is *directly relevant* to the subject matter of the article and the (unsubstantiated) claims of the original author's "purpose" for promoting this work?
Either the "purpose" section is irrelevant and should be removed from the article, or a substantive basis for evaluating this purpose is required for balance.
As it stands now the article contains nothing but bald unsubstantiated claims attributed to the author of this work, even though the work itself contains content that sheds additional light on these claims

Please address these issues with an explanation or by correcting them in the article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dr.ef.tymac that the article, as is, does not have good cites. I suspect that much of the material in the article COULD be cited from media publications, but it at this time is not. The article's claims about the nature of the work are views that are commonly held in the fan community, at least... but as it stands it needs work. I do not agree with the "unencyclopedic topic" tagging, though. The book has been published in enough different languages, and has a high enough amazon rank, to be notable, and there has been controversy around it that is citable, and verifiable, so it's a suitable topic. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everyone so far is in agreement that the article itself does not suffer as "unencyclopedic" ... but the subsection about Smith's stated purpose in publishing this work appears to have problems. Can anyone name a *single* category of Wikipedia articles where unattributed claims by the author regarding the "purpose" behind writing a work is considered standard treatment? These seem to be precisely the kinds of claims that necessitate secondary sources under WP:OR. dr.ef.tymac 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I missed that the unencyclopedic tag was on just that section, sorry. I agree with you that the author's claims, by themselves, are not good sources. However even the sources currently given do give sufficient material to construct a purpose section, if someone were to go through the sources looking for things and pulled them together... the SJMN source for example has things like the quote from Kendall Cameron Jr. that get to the issue. But as it stands the article is deficient, and to fix it would be significant work. Note that this SJMN source is no longer available on line for free but (as a LEGO hobbyist active in the community at that time) I remember when the article first came out, and the image Brendan has on his site of the article is an accurate representation of what was published and was available online at the time. I'd go ahead and remove the entire section unless you wanted to be the one that gave it the work to correct it. ++Lar: t/c 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I must admit the whole notion of an "author's purpose for this work" section seems out of step with convention. If it were a political manifesto, that might be different, but it's difficult to imagine how this kind of thing can be "fixed" for this kind of work. If someone else knows how to resolve this, that's good, but until then I think it best to just comment out the relevant section and add the other incremental fixes necessary for the article. dr.ef.tymac 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed your example, because it had nothing to do with the purpose of "increase people's knowledge of the Bible". The "commentary" clearly is for some other purpose, i.e. to entertain, to make fun of the bible, to irritate people, etc. It is the illustrations and actual bible quotes that are meant to "increase people's knowledge of the Bible". An appropriate example would be to compare an actual bible quote Smith uses to the King James bible and several other bible versions. — Reinyday, 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, I am not aware of any WP policy that allows us to offer any form of independent interpretation of the purpose of Smith's commentary, or even whether there is/was a "purpose." Which parts of the commentary are riducule, which parts are comedic, which parts are didactic, which parts are sincere attempts to correctly interpret? All? None? I don't know how one can give answers to these questions without violating WP:OR ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material"). If there is a cite to a reliable secondary source to back this up then that's one thing, but absent that, this kind of first-hand analysis by you and me clearly seems out of bounds for the article. Anyway, you deleted that section so this is just to clarify some of the concerns. See also the issues with "author's purpose" above. dr.ef.tymac 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To address other issues, I deleted the "purpose" section. A link to a source is absolutely legitamate. Of course we can use TBT's information on its widespread use in churches, just like you could use the New York Times' statistics on its circulation to discuss its popularity. The citation was only for church use. Are you actually asking for a citation for atheists who like the books/website? Then it would be a matter of selecting from many blogs and personal sites, which doesn't seem particularly useful. What's with the dubious tag? You doubt that atheists like TBT? I'm unclear on what correction you could want. — Reinyday, 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Popularity problem: The issue is pretty straightforward and I think an easy fix is available. The problem is, any claim of "Y is popular among X" automatically raises concerns for: 1) accuracy; 2) self-promotion; and 3) neutrality. It's a factual assertion about both the demographic cohort "X" and its (strictly) favorable opinion of "Y".
Extending your analogy, let's stipulate for sake of discussion that TBT's credibility rating indeed matches that of the New York Times(!)
Which seem balanced and authoritative to you?:
  • The New York Times is increasingly popular among women for it's compelling, emotionally taut photojournalism ... and among men for it's incisive and erudite editorial style; OR
  • The New York Times is increasingly popular (proved by its skyrocketing circulation). The competition's circulation is increasing also, but that's just because people use them for toilet paper; OR
  • The New York Times has a daily circulation of X units in American households, and Y units in households worldwide; OR EVEN
  • The New York Times has XY units circulation, and is commonly the subject of discussion on such and such women's blog and this and that men's web forum; OR EVEN
  • The NYT is ranked Z among newspapers and is routinely discussed in blogs and web forums.
Moreover, although any of these formulations might indeed appear in the NYT, not all of them would be appropriate substantiation for an encyclopedia article. This is true even despite its general level of credibility. Considering that TBT's credibility rating is in fact not that of the NYT (who would seriously dispute this?), along with the fact that the link provided says absolutely nothing about relative ranking, sales, or anything that can be independently fact-checked by outsiders, but *does* include ads for books and paypal donation links (precisely where one would expect puffery and 'testimonials'), it seems pretty clear-cut that closer scrutiny is not only called-for, but it is essential if this WP article is to be taken seriously. dr.ef.tymac 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the white hair-piece

Uhm, theres a minor error in the article... Lego did manufacture a white male hair piece as part of a space-theme. Just thought that ought to be changed, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.194.45 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)