This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Resolved. material can be included if reliably sourced. Benjiboi 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a comment that many D&D gamers actually find these claims hilarious? Certainly I've seen links to "Dark Dungeons" in the humour section of many boards.
- Sir Ophiuchus (who can't be bothered to log in)
'Dark Dungeons, which insinuates that Dungeons and Dragons players are Satanists, is famous for inspiring many parodies...' --Calair 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it hilarious. There you go. --Cheeesemonger 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As a former D&D player (that's where I get the "Paladin" part of my name), I can attest to the fact that many players enjoyed playing "evil" characters and they themselves were either atheists or hateful of Christianity. Don't get me wrong I loved and still love the game, but D&D poses ethical issues for persons of faith who roleplay characters in evil forms. Jtpaladin 11:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a reliable source to include this. Benjiboi 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul Sammon/OUTcast
Resolved. material can be included if reliably sourced
International criticism has been led by Paul Sammon of "OUTcast", a somewhat militant gay rights group which sprung from Outrage!. OUTcast support Chick's opinions on almost all issues, but do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, instead seeing it as creating a group of modern day monks.
Googling on '+"paul sammon" +"gay rights"' produces just two hits, neither of which support any of this - there is a sci-fi author by that name, and a New Zealand physical-education lecturer, but I couldn't find anything connecting them with gay rights.
Googling on '+"paul sammon" +"jack chick"' produces just one hit, with no relevant content. Googling on '+"paul sammon" +"chick tracts"' produces no hits at all, likewise for '+"paul sammon" +"chick tract"' and '+"paul sammon" +"chick publications"'. The idea of a 'militant gay rights group' that 'supports Chick's opinions on almost all issues' is bizarre, and needs supporting documentation. In the absence of any supporting cites, I'm therefore deleting this passage (again); please do not re-add it without providing evidence. At the very least, claiming that this person has 'led' international criticism is a tremendous exaggeration. --Calair 00:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about reverting it without checking on the name Paul Sammon. As I said, I knew the group existed, and so assumed that it could well be true about the person. I have no problem with the deletion, and leave it to whoever entered it initially to back up what they have entered. 134.226.1.136 12:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Chick flicks?
Resolved. Material can be introduced if reliably sourced. Benjiboi 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
JC's come out against chick-flicks? I need to know which tract that was in, so I can print it out and slip it into my wife's DVD collection ;-) --Calair 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That was an uncited assumption on my part. Most "chick flicks" deal with subject matter that Herr Chick would likely oppose. Wahkeenah 18:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, as cute as it is, probably shouldn't be in the article :-/ --Calair 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's true. We'll see who challenges it. Wahkeenah 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be in the article if you can't substantiate it. Please find the tract, a reference, or remove the edit. --KSnortum 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with KSnortum that speculation about Chick's views (even plausible speculation) shouldn't be here; if there's good evidence for that speculation, just offer the evidence. But that's not really the issue here, because the sentence is about something more specific:
Chick is most famous for his publications on issues that are highly controversial even within Christianity, such as Occultism, Freemasonry [2], Catholicism [3], Islam [4], abortion, and homosexuality, which many fundamentalist Protestant Christians believe are sinful — together with more mundane activities such as role-playing games and popular music... and, ironically enough, Chick flicks.
This is about Chick's publications. I'm aware of publications that specifically address each of the other issues in that list (music here, the rest are very easy to find). Unless he's put out a publication about chick-flicks, they just don't fit in this list. --Calair 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised that he doesn't seem to have much to say about Hollywood in general, which is a typical hot-button issue for his kind. Is he unaware of the existence of motion pictures? Wahkeenah 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about that before, but now you mention it, that is odd. He must be aware of movies, because he throws in movie references now and then to make the tracts more appealing - 'Boo!' is based on slasher flicks, and then there are cutesy tract titles like 'The Gay Blade' and 'The Terminator'. But I can't remember him ever doing a tract about movies; 'Bewitched' is about as close as it gets. Can't be for lack of material; there's certainly plenty in Hollywood to offend Chick's sensibilities. --Calair 05:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I reckon even a zealot can't cover all the bases. But if he targets rock music, you would think he would target "Hollywood liberals". I don't know what to think at this point. Maybe I should send him an e-mail and ask him what he thinks about "Brokeback Mountain". Come to think of it, that's a chick flick, and I'm sure he thinks it's horrible. (I haven't seen it, as I'm not really into westerns). Wahkeenah 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That Crazy Guy
Resolved.
Sadly, the current version of That Crazy Guy has almost nothing about Craig's personality. Because the source has changed, I edited out the description of it as a parody of Steve Martin's character. Chip Unicorn 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
hi Chip, the title is derived from A Wild and Crazy Guy, a steve martin album. Chick thought martin's jokes about VD were NOT funny, so he responded with this tract. craig's look is also derived from steve martin. --Ghetteaux 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty hard to tell that just from the comic - there's only one panel showing Craig, and he's wearing sunglasses. A source would be good here. --Calair 01:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
compare the image to the right with the cover illustration. also, compare the title to steve martin's comedy album. ALso note that A Wild and Crazy Guy makes numerous comedic references to Venereal Disease. open and shut case, like star wars / spaceballs. --Ghetteaux 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree that it references Steve Martin's comedy routine. But I would hardly call it a critique. I've changed the description once more. Does this work for you?
how about this one? it is a "response" --Ghetteaux 10:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Works great by me! :-> Chip Unicorn 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What about Thanksgiving?
Resolved.
I figured out that the Chick Publications article has something missing, and that is Thanksgiving. Chick thinks that Thanksgiving is in danger, and he inaccurately tells the "true" history of Thanksgiving in his tract The Missing Day; as its summary claims: "The nation that stops being thankful and forgets God is heading for judgement [sic]." There's a link to it here. --Angeldeb82 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
A few quick comments: 1. If you feel that this tract is significant, put a reference in the article. 2. I don't think that Chick tract says that Thanksgiving is evil. He says "Thanksgiving was once our most honored day. But today it's a jobe. We're not thankful for anything. And this offends God." 3. Wow -- Chick throws in a lot of stereotypes. Chip Unicorn 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you misspelled "joke". I think I "understand" that Thanksgiving is "a religious holiday that is vandalized by sinners in the world thankful for Mom, beer, and apple pie". It is in fact a national holiday. Chick somehow misunderstood it. --Angeldeb82 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood, since He isn't calling Thanksgiving evil at all. Re-read the tract again. Keero 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that. I've since changed it to "Thanksgiving is in danger". Is that better? --Angeldeb82 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Response to Catholic Idolatry
Remember when Jack Chick claims that Catholics do evil stuff like worship idols and other evils they did not do? Well, I stumbled upon a response in AmericanCatholic.org. It is a question that is answered in this link: Are Statues Idols? I hope this teaches Chick a lesson not to screw around with us Catholics and give us a bad name! LOL --Angeldeb82 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a catholic, but not an atheist. I for one am a protestant and I support Jack in every, way, he is truely a wise man....MY ARSE!I AM a protestant, i'm quite religious too, but I find this guy:
1.In need of heavy medication...prefferably euthanasia
2.A complete idiot.
3.The guy who spits in the face of 'don't knock it till you try it' phrase.He said there are all sorts of rituals, ouija boards, and crystal balls in Harry Potter.Bullshite, utter bullshite, except for the crystal balls part, but those are basically fairs trying to make money.Bottom line:he's a fucktard.81.154.172.30 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is your point? This discussion page is for improving the article not your own personal ranting and raving forum. Jtpaladin 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-cited or inaccurate
There's quite a bit of stuff in this article that is not cited and inaccurate. For example, "Chick is most famous for his stances on issues that are highly controversial even within Christianity, such as opposition to homosexuality and Islam. Sorry but those are not controversial in mainstream Christianity. Homosexuality is a sin according to every mainstream Christian denomination and Islam is considered a false religion. Therefore, I've made the appropriate adjustments. Jtpaladin 11:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Abraham is the source for Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It's just that fundamentalist Christianity dislikes Islam, as if they are putting down Abraham. Besides, fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam can be very dangerous. --Angeldeb82 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What does your comment have to do with improving this article. There are a number of passages in this article that seem to be opinion, guess, or other original research. This article could use some tweaking to make it more encyclopedic. However, I do not wish to delete wholesale passages, so I will give some of the original editors time to come back and cite sources. 66.192.126.3 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This article reeks of nothing more than self-referenced blather. Anything that isn't supported by reliable sources for third parties should be trimmed considerably. Let's start by cutting the "claims" "criticisms" and "response to criticisms" sections. Nothing here is of encyclopedic value unless a 3rd party reports on it. --Whydoesthisexist 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I just trimmed these sections. If someone has external citations indicating how this information is valid/notable, feel free to readd it. --Whydoesthisexist 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood how notability works on Wikipedia. Third-party reporting is generally an important criterion for establishing whether the subject of an article is noteworthy enough to belong on WP, but as WP:NOTE states (emphasis mine): "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."
I've done my share of trivia-removal from this article in the past, but it's entirely appropriate that an article on Chick Publications should mention some of their major recurring themes - anti-Catholicism, anti-evolution, KJV-only-ism, etc - and for that sort of thing, the horse's mouth is a perfectly adequate source. --Calair 02:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: I'm not convinced that all the material I restored should be in the article - much or all of the 'Criticisms' and 'Responses' sections could probably be deleted, and I won't object if they are - but it's easier to re-delete the sections that really need deleting than to reintegrate the worthwhile material down the track after other edits have changed the article. --Calair 02:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. The whole article just seems like propoganda: here are our claims, here are some criticisms, but here's how we respond to them. Since when is that part of an encyclopedia article?? --Whydoesthisexist 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some topics where the arguments for and against so-and-so have become an important aspect of that topic - for instance, it's entirely appropriate that the article on intelligent design mentions the arguments about its scientific merits (or lack thereof), and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
That said, most of the time IMHO (and this article included) 'criticisms' and 'defences' sections are a bad thing. Partly because they tend to be treated as weasel word zones full of stuff like "some people criticise Chick for so-and-so" without indicating who those 'some people' are - if such things can't be attributed to a notable person or organisation, they probably shouldn't be in there. (Usually, 'some people' translates to 'a Wikipedia editor' ;-) Splitting discussion into 'pro' and 'anti' also has a tendency to lose a lot of nuance.
My preference would be to see much of those two sections deleted, but there are some bits and pieces there that should instead be integrated into other parts of the article - I've done this with the bit on Chick's sources for his anti-Catholic/Masonic/etc claims, but I don't have the time to do the rest for now. --Calair 09:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What Angeldeb82 said about fundamentalist Christianity is wrong. Jesus said to love enemies (Matt 6:14) and Christians are
opposing the religion Islam but not the people, but in Sura in the Qur'an is written "the unbelievers(non-muslims) are your
open enemies" (Sura 4:101)... and the chick articles need improvement the radio carbon method is mentioned in
Sorry, I'm from Mexico and I only have these comic books in Spanish, so I'm not sure how they're titled in English. Why isn't there an article about these books, also by Chick Publications? They're not as popular or cheap as the Tracts, but they got even more information concerning Chick's views. Now, I personally found these comics rather bad because there isn't as much action as it has information, but I think they deserve an article. The main characters are James and Thomas, two Christian evangelists and their various adventures. Six of these stories have Dr. Alberto Rivera as a guest star, and feature much of his opinions. Also, there are two special volumes "King of Kings" (the Bible told in comic book fashion) and "The Great Treason" (testimony of Charles Chiniquy). Why aren't any of these comics mentioned?--Surten (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Surten
Thanks! Though I suggest making a full article about the "Crusaders" (now I know how to spell it)--Surten (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Surten
Chick tracts are ubiquitous so we all know they're notable, you'll likely need to dig up reliable sources and see what they say about the Crusaders. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Judaism Tag
What does this article have to do with Judaism, and why has it been tagged as part of the Judaism Wikiproject?Rosencomet (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd guess that the logic would be that Chick wants the Jews to become Christians. Redddogg (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
3 way merge proposal
I would like to suggest that these three articles be merged: Chick Publications, Chick Tracts, and Jack Chick. Jack Chick is only known as the author of the Chick Tracts and Chick Publications is only known as their publisher. I'm not sure myself how to do a three way merge proposal. (I still object to the use of copyrighted images on these articles, but it seems that I am against the consensus on that.) Redddogg (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
To keep all dialog on the merger in one place please join discussion hereBenjiboi 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Howard Hallis case
This article could include the fair use conflict in regards to parody brought against Howard Hallis as summarized here. Benjiboi 11:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Here (http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_archive.html) is an account of the cease and desist case with the ISP in question; BNA's Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal - Study Concludes Cease-and-Desist Letters Volume 68 Number 1693; Friday, October 29, 2004 Page 729. Benjiboi 12:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible content for this and Chick Tracks article
In time, the art in the tracts received an upgrade—not because Chick changed his own style of drawing but because he hired an artist with much better skills. Yet he did not announce this fact and did not put the new artist’s name on the works he produced. Instead, they continued to carry the credit "by Jack T. Chick" or simply "by J.T.C." The difference between the two drawing styles was so dramatic that it was immediately noticed by readers, and rumors circulated about who the "good artist" might be. It would be some time before Chick disclosed that the man’s name was Fred Carter.
In 1972, he hired Fred Carter, an African-American painter and illustrator from Danville, Illinois, who had studied at Chicago’s American Academy of Art. Carter’s realistic illustrations and distinctive inking style made him a perfect fit for the [Crusaders comic book] series’ action sequences and exotic locales. Witch burnings and ritual murders are captured in gleefully visceral detail, while the books’ sexual overtones—as well as scantily clad biblical sirens like Eve, Delilah, and Semiramis—have led critics to describe Carter’s work as "spiritual porn."
At once, the artwork improved tenfold. Chick, however, kept Carter’s name off all of the comics. Rumors and speculation about the identity of the so-called good artist at Chick Publications began to spread. For years fans theorized that Carter’s work was produced by a team of illustrators or an unknown Filipino man dubbed "Artist J." Chick finally revealed Carter’s identity in 1980, claiming that the artist is "rather shy and declines to put his name on his art."
Through the years Chick also became associated with others who had an impact on his publications. The conspiracy angle in his works jumped significantly through his involvement with two men in particular.
One was John Todd, an evangelist who claimed to have been raised in a "witchcraft family" and supposedly was part of a gigantic conspiracy of witches called "the Illuminati." According to Todd, numerous political and religious figures were part of the conspiracy. He claimed that as a "Grand Druid High Priest" he was given a thirteen-state territory and that "over 90 percent of politicians in that thirteen-state area received financial support from him and took orders regarding political decisions from him." The religious figures allegedly part of the witch conspiracy included Jim Bakker, Billy Graham, Walter Martin, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson. Also involved were C. S. Lewis, Pat and Debbie Boone, and a number of Protestant denominations, "from Assemblies of God to the Southern Baptists."
One way the Illuminati spread their occult tendrils through society was through rock music. Songs in this genre often "contained coded spells or incantations that the listener wasn’t aware of." Based on Todd’s claims, Chick issued a number of publications, including the large-format comic book Spellbound? (against rock music) and the tract Dark Dungeons (against fantasy role-playing games).
Todd was exposed as a fraud in publications such as Christianity Today and Cornerstone. He later was convicted and sent to prison for rape. Nevertheless, Chick is still publishing materials repeating his claims and thanking him openly for providing the information.
The other major figure hyping Jack Chick’s conspiracy theories was the late Alberto Rivera. Benjiboi 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Claims section references deleted articles
The Claims section of this article includes the following: "... most prominently Alberto Rivera, William Schnoebelen, and John Todd. The reliability of these sources is hotly disputed, as detailed in their individual articles." However, the William Schnoebelen and John Todd articles have both been deleted per AFD. Either those articles should be restored (with the problems noted in the AFD corrected), or this article needs to be updated with the relevant information from the deleted pages. John Darrow (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the things I noticed about the Chick tracts is that they conflate accusations that have been made against Freemasonry and attribute them to the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, the Civil War was alleged to have a strong Masonic element, although Chick blames it on the Church. The Grand Orient lodges have been accused of backing socialism/communism, but again Chick attributes this to the Church. It is as if Chick thinks that the Pope was the leader of the Illuminatis/Masons, when in fact he was one of their most bitter foes. ADM (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Request regarding web page links
PLEASE use the format provided at Template:Cite_web when you add a web page. Just having a url doesn't do anyone any good.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism Section
Please review WP:OR. This section currently appears to be original research. Even if true and accurate, you can't put it in Wikipedia unless a reliable third party source has said it. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That section is the most well cited section in the whole article. Get real.Farsight001 (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"Cited" doesn't matter if it's OR. Let's take the first paragraph -
Chick's critics (such as talkorigins, Hindu American Foundation, Catholic Answers, etc) accuse him of misrepresentation — for instance, the online version of Chick's tract Big Daddy only uses Dr. Kent Hovind as a reference [14]
This is OR
despite the fact that Kent Hovind has no degrees from an accredited institution in the relevant fields, the thesis referred to is of very poor quality, and his claims are at odds with the published statements of experts in the field [39][40][41]
Again, OR, though with some rewriting reference 41 would probably do the tricl
Worse Hovind's referenced claim in Big Daddy of "It has never been against the law the teach the Bible or creation in public schools" is both misleading and false.[42][43] ("In the U. S. Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard a remarkable friend-of-court brief was submitted by 72 Nobel laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations which exposed "scientific creationism" as a fraud.")[44]
References 42,43,44 don't seem to mention Chick Publications at all, they're talking about Kent Hovind. The rest of the section doesn't get any better. To be cited, the references should be talking about the article topic. Putting together different sources and synthesising and argument is WP:OR--Insider201283 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to cut the OR. This article needs a lot of work. Auntie E (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
How about we just put the tag back first? I'm no expert on this subject, but it appears that some of what's said could be reworded and backed up by some of the sources. I encourage the original contributor to do so rather than just delete it wholesale. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I re-added the tag. I see no reason why it should have been removed when we are still discussing it. Auntie E (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I initially removed it because it's the most well cited section of the article. Yes, it needs definite improvement. Jack Chick is too out there for most people to bother talking about him, so good citations will be a perpetual struggle. However, I don't feel that if there should be a tag there, that it should be the OR one.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
To be entirely honest, since he's not all that notable (but certainly notable enough), I'd go for merging Jack Chick and Chick tract into this article. That may help with citation issues.Farsight001 (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
IMHO the three way merging suggested a while back needs to be opened again. Chick tract is a mess with 90% of the references coming from Chick's own tracks.
On some of the other issues. Please note that WP:OR states "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." You can say Big Daddy is an black and white comic and not claim OR, how the references are used is no different. Also note WHERE there references are; inline references do not have to verify truth of the entire sentence (due to modern practices of putting them near punctuation)
Also Farsight001 and I already kicked this around in Talk:Jack_T._Chick#What_do_we_do_regarding_Chick.27s_references. Perhaps the phrasing sucks but the FACT is Hovind's claim of "It has never been against the law the teach the Bible or creation in public schools" in Big Daddy is flat out WRONG. Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) and Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) show it to be FALSE and Spinney confirms it (he just doesn't mention the actual cases involved)
In looking for Ito, Robert (2003) "To Hell With You" Independent on Sunday Jul 06, 2003 (old link broke) I found Dittmer, Jason (2007) "Of Gog and Magog: The Geopolitical Visions of Jack Chick and Premillennial Dispensationalism ACME An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(2), 278-303. I then looked for any papers on Chick and his work and found some more promising papers:
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)
Burack, Cynthia (2006) "From Doom Town to Sin City: Chick Tracts and Anti-gay Political Rhetoric" New Political Science, 1469-9931, Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 163–179
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
And a maybe in the form of
Cearley, GD (2006) Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Chick sounds a bit worse than Chick does! Needs citations. Last editor rm my request for citation and placed more WP:OR opinion in! Student7 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how. He uses really wonky logic. It has been known for well over 30 years that dinosaurs came a variety of sizes and to imply that they were all big is effectively stacking the deck.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for straightening out this material and refs. Much improved IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. material can be included if reliably sourced
