Talk:Ray Comfort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"no formal training in theology"[edit]

"no formal training in theology" - why is this the very 2nd sentence?

It is very odd, since it is on the 3rd PAGE of the article reference!

If ABC found it 3rd-page material, why it is 2nd sentence material here?

I smell detractor edits.

Deipnosopher (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead does need work. TheAE talk/sign 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in the lede, but does belong in the article. Since Comfort is an author and preacher, his education or lack thereof[1] needs discussed somewhere. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but with your addition, it made the same fact and source be used twice (see here). The fact in now included under Ray Comfort#Origins and theology (your addition). Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The education of ANY person involved in a 'hot topic' debate should be part of their biography. Especially if that education has a direct tie to the debate at hand. Here Ray Comfort's education in both theology and biology is extremely important. The main page for any figure should include relevant facts to their importance. Ray Comfort's theological and scientific background here are of indubitable importance.

I think adding his education is important since he is an educator himself. I believe he has a highschool diploma from Austraila. Does anyone know the school? --JTsams  talk 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New book; amazon[edit]

I think the the atheist book section over all should be expanded a bit, and the amazon rating sentence taken out unless its actually relevant.209.33.36.126 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed. I'm not sure in what ways this book should be expanded. Is it notable for some reason? It appears to be notable only in the sense that hit #1 in an Amazon category and was probably one of his better selling books (or at least it had high sales at release compared to other books). I don't think anyone cares that he did a promotional tour for the book or that it was #6 in some other category or whatever. –Sigeng (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Conversion and Length[edit]

MY EDIT ON CONVERSION People are not "born Jewish," or "born Secular Humanist." Religions ideologies, and philosophies are taught. If one's biological parents were Catholic and believed in Bigfoot but you were adopted at birth by a couple who were atheist academics with conservative Hindu parents (i.e., the child's adoptive grandparents are religious Hindu); were you born a Catholic Bigfoot believer? Nonsense.

SECOND EDIT ON CONVERSION Apparently, one parent was Jewish or raised Jewish. I am unable to find any information on the the religion of the other parent. Perhaps both parents self-identified as Christian. At this time, the professed religious beliefs of Ray Comfort's parents are not know. I am unable to find statements attributable to these individuals that establish religious self-identification.

LENGTH I agree with the other reviewers that this page is excessive in length and seems self-promoting.

Sorry to butt in but actually to say one is "born Jewish" is really more a matter of Ethnology... To say there is no group of what we would term genetically "Semitic" people is kind of like saying there are no Asians... which is just rather silly. On the other hand it's equally improper to attribute someone of Semitic background a direct link to what most people would consider a "Historically Hebrew" race... there you're really getting into semantics. It has been argued and questioned as to whether or not a direct line back to Abraham survived the first century, and in some cases if it even survived until then. And then of course the argument that it never really existed, which is both a philosophical and religious argument. But then of course that takes you to exactly what I believe you're stating, that you're not "Born of" a religion, but it certainly can be argued that someone can be "born into" a religion, as you say if both parents are of one affiliation and teach that belief as a model of parenting. And certainly that is not uncommon, if it were I don't think the Barna Group would have bothered with a study that showed most people leaving the religion they were born into at 18. And I'm not here to advocate one or strike up an argument, I suppose just to clarify if it needs clarification. In due dilligence it could also be said that properly speaking modern day Judaism as a religion is a modification of the original Hebrew religion that required animal sacrifices and such but was effectively eliminated by the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. So if a person were indeed to say they were "born Jewish," it may indeed be warranted to question what they mean by that... though I feel the need to add the qualification that this is likely to be offensive. I suspect many people would say such a thing but perhaps not realize the actual perspective they are communicating. Hopefully that makes sense. --Arkcana (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Debate with Thunderf00t[edit]

It's been done now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.209.151 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

It looks like the references section got blanked out, and when I tried to add its contents back in, I discovered that one of the refs is spam filtered, and so the edit was blocked. Someone who cares more should follow up on this, so that the citations are visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.198.84 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this. "Examiner.com" was blacklisted, and simply had to be removed. {{reflist}} is back as well. :) American Eagle (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Species[edit]

I received a copy of the Origin of Species with the forward in it today on campus. The section should be updated to the present tense. It does contain all chapters in it (meaning a little work with a razor blade created a perfectly good copy). 68.51.88.250 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)cjcastor

New sections go at the bottom of the Talk Page (just as new posts go at the bottom of sections). Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Right now in that section it speaks of "Comfort's evangelical musings and old creationist arguments presented on every page of this introduction." Is that the NPOV way of Wikipedia? I say it should be reworded, or, to be fair, we should say that the rest of the book is full of "Darwin's evolutionist musings and old evolutionist arguments presented on almost every page." Invmog (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what a reliable secondary source says, and it properly reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus. NPOV requires due weight to the clear scientific consensus, and requires that we do not give "equal validity" to pseudoscience. The requirements for fringe subjects preclude your suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned to Dave on his Talk Page, due weight to the scientific consensus only applies in articles that lack the context of controversy (i.e.: the articles on Dorylus, Dionaea muscipula, Finches, etc. But in articles that are about a controversial subject like EvC (or related articles), the article cannot appear to endorse one side as a matter-of-fact conclusion. To reuse the metaphor I used earlier, think of a scientific article on a non-controversial subject like a science classroom: You don't mention the creationist perspective in the article on each species, because that article is in the domain of science, and creationism lacks any scientific standing. But think of controversy articles like a social studies classroom: You allow each side to talk, and do not endorse one side or the other, instead making sure to let everyone know what each person said.
If a reliable secondary source says that, then the assertion must be attributed to that source more explicitly than in a non-controversy article. "Eugenie Scott called it misinformation" is fine. "The scientific community, including a Darwin biographer, called it 'muddled thinking'" is fine. But merely saying "it contains misinformation" is not. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The first three pages of the introduction are not full of creationist drivel, because they were stolen from a man who actually knows something. - Soulkeeper (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, Dave, I completely agree with you about the pseudoscience part; I don't know why in the world Macroevolution has been tolerated for so long. Invmog (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
But, then again, saying that won't get us anywhere because you'll think all the evidence points to macroevolution and I'll think all the evidence points to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Wikipedia isn't a forum to discuss worldviews even though people's worldviews are made apparent in their edits. Invmog (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the article on macroevolution, it's "tolerated" for the same reason the article on any other controversial topic is tolerated: Because it's noteworthy, and encyclopedic. We do not include only topics on scientific ideas, or even valid ones. It would be irresponsible of an encyclopedia to not include articles on pseudoscientific topics. Moreover, only a portion of the macroevolution article deals with the version of the term as used by creationists; most of it deals with the scientific uses of it. Nightscream (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Current Picture[edit]

Say, does anyone own a better picture of Ray, or know of where we could get a free one? The current one lacks quality.Invmog (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? It's a sharp, full-face image - just right for a biographical article. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; the picture is OK, but in regards to lighting and everything it would be better if we had a higher quality one available. It just looks like someone took the picture with a flash standing just a few feet in front of his face which makes Comfort and his clothes glow bright and the background come out real dark. It doesn't have to b changed but it would be an improvement. Invmog (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

if the face is OK then that's the main thing. perhaps you could put out an appeal at a couple of wikiprojects for a better one? Mind you, I recall Joss Stone being illustrated with a blurred picture taken on a phone at one of her concerts, so we should think ourselves lucky perhaps.

Category:American evangelicals[edit]

Is he American? He lives in California but is he a US citizen? If not, we can lose this category. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people are considered American even they are not US citizens, but you're right; we might not need that category. Invmog (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
He lives in America, and was just born in New Zealand. He's an American. :) American Eagle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You can be American just by living in America? Someone should tell the birthers. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware that one must currently be a citizen of the US to be considered "American". I doubt it... American Eagle (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem - two different definitions of American: mine legalistic, yours more general. So, how does this affect the category, and is it worth the discussion? Totnesmartin (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Meh... I don't really care one way or another. :) He lives in America, has for years, and is most likely an American citizen, so I'll support leaving it as is. American Eagle (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... it's only a category. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright. We'll keep it as is. Although, if you find some solid information that he really isn't an American citizen, or he is moving back to New Zealand, etc., feel free to reopen this discussion, Totnes. :) God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Background[edit]

Does anyone have any concrete information about his past in New Zealand they could add to the article? I remember, years ago, he used to preach in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, at the same time as the Wizard of New Zealand. It used to be very entertaining watching the Wizard run rings around him. He always seemed to take it in good grace, though. I'm sure he gained a lot of experience at debating in those years of crossing swords with the Wizard. TeWaitere (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard Ray speak before and I remember him mentioning outdoor preaching in Christchurch, New Zealand. Invmog (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This video confirms his 1) New Zealand background 2) His debates with The Wizard: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/60Minutes/tabid/371/articleID/93573/cat/46/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.149.85 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of publications[edit]

The section "Publications", a listing of Comfort's publications, seems extraordinarily long. I think that we should trim this down if possible. Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, so should we only keep notable ones? Invmog (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Many of these publications are tracts. I would agree that his significant writings should be mentioned, but I don't see how the inclusion of every religious pamphlet or tract he's ever put out makes this a better article. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The NCSE's Flier and Bookmarks[edit]

Why is it notable to mention that the National Center for Science Education, which is pretty obscure judging by its Wikipedia article, handed out a bunch of fliers and book marks, or more specifically, why should it be mentioned in Comfort's article when it is not even in the NCSE's very own article? Invmog (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing[edit]

I moved the date of birth (December 5, 1949) and mention of his being born in New Zealand here from the article until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Banana Man" reference[edit]

Cameron is referred to as "Banana Man" twice in the article, but no explanation is given. I know why he is referred to as such - because of his laughable assertion that the modern banana proves the existence of God because it "looks designed". He cites as evidence the fact that is is yellow and has a non-slip surface and no pips or seeds and points towards the mouth when in fact the modern banana has been cultivated by humans and is VERY different to wild bananas! Isn't it therefore appropriate that a section explaining the controversy surrounding his claims and his subsequent nickname "Banana Man"? 77.100.24.221 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right. The banana found in the wild was 3 and a half inches long, green, and with big seeds in it. Hardly the convenient, selectively bred banana that Comfort claims was designed by God for humans. 174.116.224.54 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms Section[edit]

Ray is definitely one that needs a criticisms section. He is is very anti-science and his views on science are at extreme opposition with the scientific community. His use of quote mining and other dishonest practices need to be included to round out the views on his page. 67.169.80.150 (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Read through Wikipedia:Criticism sections. It says that criticism sections can be added, but it's best to mix it in where appropriate in the article. If you have found sourced criticism of him, feel free to add it to the article where applicable. A criticism "section" should be avoided, if possible. Original research and your opinion can't be added; everything must be based on reliable sources. Thanks. :) American Eagle (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"He is is very anti-science..."!? He's against organized knowledge? Can I hear a [citation needed] ? And maybe some logic? A guy can dream... Invmog (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind WP:TALK, and not let this turn into a general discussion of the topic. Talk Pages are solely to discuss ways to improve the article. With respect to criticism, we can include such material, as long as it adheres to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah; you're right, sorry. Invmog (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. With out formal training he attempts to discredit scientific studies, scientists themselves (See his Everything from Nothing book), urges the replacement of a real science (evolution and biology) with a psudo-science (intelligent design) (see Ray Comfort & Thunderfoot DVD from his own site). He also tries to use one field of science's (cosmology) definition of evidence to try to invalidate another unrelated field of science (evolution) which has different criteria for evidence (which is perfectly acceptable). 24.6.169.121 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I, Invmog, moved this comment from 24.6.169.121 to the bottom of the discussion, where new edits are supposed to go. I did not in anyway change the above comment; I just moved it down here to comply with standard talk page procedures (otherwise my "Yeah; you're right, sorry," which was to Nightscream, would have appeared to be to this comment, which it isn't.) Invmog (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll kindly quote one of the editors on this topic, "Let's keep in mind WP:TALK, and not let this turn into a general discussion of the topic. Talk Pages are solely to discuss ways to improve the article. With respect to criticism, we can include such material, as long as it adheres to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc." Invmog (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I, for one would encourage the idea of a criticism section of the article. Mr.Comfort has many critics of this work. PZ Myers is one of them (his blogs has several entries), Richard Dawkins is another. And it's not just Atheist groups. There are several Christians groups who don't aggree with his methods. There should be also mention of his tactics used in his ministry, which are just propaganda techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4l4d1um (talkcontribs) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Then we'll need reliable sources. Note, btw, that the above comments (before yours, P414d1um) are from 2 years ago. But if you know of reliable sources, they can probably be added; as mentioned before, it's better to integrate them into the existing text, but we can figure that once we figure out what the sources are. One note: blogs are only very rarely reliable sources, and they are never reliable sources for information on living people other than the blog writer xyrself (see WP:BLPSPS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.97.118.32, 20 February 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} It should probably be mentioned somewhere that this man is homophobic and sexist. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWBC0AnAAT0&feature=channel 4minutes 40 to 5 minutes.

7people (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We should be very careful about making such negative claims in a biography of a living person, and it would have to be based on a very solid source - an intepretation of a Youtube video probably doesn't cut it. Are there any better sources which make it explicit? Or could the wording be toned down a bit? IE. "Comfort has suggested that..." bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty solid source, its an unedited video from CBN (a network that Ray Comfort supports) and the Youtube video linked to is posted by Ray Comfort's own official Youtube account. Where he says "the bible is just fairy tales, and because of that I believe in a woman's right to choose, I believe in gay marriage"

It's very obvious that hes referring to those things being wrong. 7people (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That being pro-life makes one a "sexist" and being against gay marriage makes one "homophobic" is an interpretation, and not a fact. There are many women, for example, who are pro-life. Does that mean they're "sexist" as well? If you want to document his stated positions on said issues, then you'll have to provide sources in which he does so explicitly, and without the biased value judgments. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As Nightscream points out, WP:BLP requires very strong sources for such negative claims. Our interpretation will never be acceptable. Heck, even if this wasn't a BLP issue, making that type of analysis is original research. Furthermore, I'd like to note that WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, including this one, so unless 7people can provide reliable sources making this claim, this line of discussion should be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life?[edit]

I would like to remove this section entirely. It contains only a quote from Comfort himself. It's not verifiable and it's not especially informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theowarner (talkcontribs) 17:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

While I don't like excessive personal info, this seems fine to me. It clearly states that this is only his claim (i.e., it's not a verified fact), and it seems to be part of his "narrative". I personally think it should stay, but I'm certainly open to others' input. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed it because it was not sourced per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS. The citation link provided was to a Living Waters page of multiple media files, without the one in question specified. This is not an appropriate citation. If, however, there is indeed a file on that page that someone can specify that supports this, it can be re-added, with the right citation. Nightscream (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that Mr. Comfort's personal information be verified and not be reported by Mr. Comfort himself, as it is here (or was.) I think it's reasonable to exclude information that is issued as an act of public relations. Theowarner (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If the material is excessively self-promotional or self-aggrandizing (for example, if he emphasized having a 4.0 GPA, listed awards he won like magna cum laude, etc.), but merely stating basic personal info, like where one went to school, is not public relations, nor a COI matter. I'd have no problem with it if it were sourced. Only if it went beyond casual info would a more independent or secondary source need to be emphasized. Nightscream (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.169.177.161, 27 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} The caption for the photo of Richard Dawkins states: "Dawkins ridiculing a copy of Comfort's introduction to The Origin of the Species 150th Anniversary Edition." This is not the correct title of the book, and is frequently misstated. The correct (abbreviated) title is: The Origin of Species. No "the." This is NOT a book about the human species specifically. 76.169.177.161 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Our article indicates its "On the...", so I added "on" at the beginning, in addition to removing the excess the. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Publications[edit]

The publication section is too long and is imbalanced compared to the rest of the article; it should either be trimmed down to notable publications, or moved to a separate article like List of Ray Comfort publications. Any thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Trim. A separate list of publications isn't really appropriate, unless the person is known primarily for being an author. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I am intending to trim this, because no one has protested for two years. I will trim to the first page of books shown by Amazon, a rough estimate of his "most important"/bestselling books. I also dropped the font size and will keep it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigeng (talkcontribs) 08:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Brambmanu, 3 October 2011[edit]

Hello, Could you please add in the beginning of "Early Life and Career" the following: According to Comfort's autobiography, "Out of the Comfort Zone," his mother was Jewish and his father a Gentile, making him Jewish by birth http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm. Thank you. Brambmanu (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to refer to Comfort as Jewish and comply with the requirements of WP:BLP, Comfort would need to self-identify as Jewish. It doesn't matter what Judaism 101 says, it isn't relevant. According to his autobiography, he describes his mother as Jewish and his father as a Gentile. He says that his parents put "Methodist" on his birth certificate apparently because his mother feared that there may be another Hitler and that he was given no instructions about God. See pages 123 and 202 of his book. I've added this information to the article. If you can find a reliable source where Comfort describes himself as Jewish we can add that. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Should an autobiography be used as a source? Especially for a living person? Theowarner (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought it's okay per WP:BLPSPS (see the end of the section). For this kind of material about identity it's likely to be one of the best sources isn't it ? Do you have a specific concern in this case ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject can be used as a source for information about themselves, but only in a limited fashion. Regarding material that may be self-serving, aggrandizing or promotional, it's best to use secondary sources. For material that is controversial, it is best to use autobiographical or self-published sources only in order to properly attribute the subject's point of view, which should be emphasized as such. Nightscream (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Of more concern is the use of World Net Daily as a source in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
WND and some content removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Demeaning choice of words.[edit]

"In February 2009, Comfort challenged biologist and author Richard Dawkins to a debate, offering to donate $10,000 to him. Dawkins, who had previously stated a general policy not to debate with creationists,[11] countered that he would do it for $100,000."

Can we reword this? Because Dawkins says that he wanted it to be donated to his foundation, not to himself, which I think is a significant difference.

220.255.1.107 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

done. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The banana video[edit]

Why has nobody mentioned his famous banana video? This video brought a lot of attention to Comfort on the internet and is indeed the reason I first came across him. RichYPE (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed mentioned in the article, in the section regarding TWOTM's printing of Origin of the Species. Just do a Find for the word "banana".
If you mean why is more material not devoted to that video in particular, it's because we need reliable, secondary sources in order to include such material. Please see the two linked policies for more on this. Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies on this matter. RichYPE (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted "Reality of Hell"[edit]

Can we please have the quotes around the words "Reality of Hell" in the first paragraph of the Debates section removed? They are not in the original quote (I checked) and though one accepts that Comfort's certainty in there being a hell may be debated, the phrase is part of a quotation of his own words, should that not be enough to emphasise the fact that it is HIS belief and not Wikipedia's?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragond (talkcontribs) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have made the change you've suggested. You are, of course, welcome to make such changes yourself in the future :) TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Overly large Publications section[edit]

It seems like every single pamphlet Comfort has ever made is in the Publications section, many from his own publishing company or a vanity press. I'm not an expert wikipedian but isn't there some WP rule that would apply to this? That is, this entry is not Comfort's website. And while it is an encyclopedia, it does not and should not list every publication Comfort has ever written. --Petzl (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to make this change. It's been asked for several times in the talk page without protest. I will use the first page of results from Amazon that comes up for searching for his name; presumably these are his most notable works. --Sigeng (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013[edit]

URL to citation 23 should be changed from its current address to this address: (http://web.archive.org/web/20091109051344/http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?id=383&option=com_content&task=view)

Ray Comfort has since removed this entire page from his website, including the statement in question. This wayback machine log of the site still has the page in its entirety for posterity and reference.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day. Newunit18 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added it in using the archiveurl parameter so both the original and saved urls are there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Only notable books, please![edit]

I've reverted a recent edit that inserted a pile of Comfort's book back into the bibliography. Prior to my trimming the list in the past the biggest complaint people had about this article was the ridiculously long list of Comfort's books. These complaints have it right: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many of Comfort's books are brief tracts, and readers come to Wikipedia to learn who the man is, not every piece of paper he ever signed.

At first I made an arbitrary decision to take the books on the first page of Amazon results, but this is arbitrary and Wikipedia has a policy for this anyway. We should include only Comfort's notable books (with citations to support their notability) in the article, as described in WP:NBOOK. There are five criteria for book notability, but only one applies to Comfort's books:

"The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

Having an ISBN number or not being self published does not make a book notable.

-Sigeng (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a firm opinion on which books should or should not be included in the Bibliography, but notability is not a valid argument. Notability (and this includes WP:NBOOK) refers to whether a topic merits its own article, and not whether it merits inclusion in an article. The idea that the only things that can be listed in lists in articles are noteworthy ones is obviously untrue, as any number of articles with lists will attest, and indeed, of the eight titles in the version of the list that you favor, Sigeng, only one of them is a notable one, and even that one wasn't wikilinked until I wikilinked it just now. I don't dispute that consideration must be given to what to include or include in lists that form only one section of an article, but notability is not a valid one. Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree on reflection that notability (deserving of its own article) is too strong of a criterion and I think I muddled the issue by introducing that. What I am attempting to do is find some criteria based on existing policy to give us a way to classify books as, let's call it, noteworthy, as in worth noting in the article. I think everyone can agree that "the book has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" certainly makes a book more interesting than one for which this is not the case.
That only appears to be the case for the eight titles I selected, so it clearly selects those ones over others. Some of them were already discussed elsewhere in the article.
More importantly, it gives provides a clear standard for either including past titles I overlooked or future titles when they appear. Sigeng (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014[edit]

Where this wiki says that the movie 180 has had 'some attention online', it should read 'is a viral video with 4.3 million views.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI 137.119.136.215 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Youtube is not a reliable source. We would need an independent secondary source for that sort of content.   — Jess· Δ 06:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)