Talk:Marshall Kirk

Possible Bias?
I noticed the only source link for the "After the Ball" section is a soutern baptist detailing how Christians "must remain strong against the scourge" page. Could somebody do a bit more research?

207.102.176.110 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Mendori

EDIT: I'm removing the paragraph until it can be proven that it's not biased. Here it is: --
 * I have replaced it. It is hard to prove a negative.  It would be more appropriate to prove that it is biased.  Incidentally, your concern was about the source, not about the paragraph. What is it, that the paragraph says, that you disagree with? --Blue Tie 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph says that After The Ball is a public relations manual on giving out propaganda, when it is actually a satire. 207.102.176.108 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Mendori


 * Do you have a citation for the authors having written as a satire? I believe I can find several references indicating that it is not. --Blue Tie 06:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing that tag for the following reasons:


 * It was added by an anon with very little editing history
 * The anon has mainly been involved in edits labeled as nonsense and vandalism
 * The reason given for adding this tag is factually incorrect
 * The anon rarely posts and so will not engage in dialog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The time I have been on here, and edits I have made at least some years peviously (I can't remember) are not under this discussion and to use them as a means of discrediting me is an ad hominem fallacy. As for replying, I do reply as often as I can get on, so rest assured I WILL stick around to finish this discussion. Lastly, how are m,y reasons factually incorrect? The neutrality of this article (anti-gay bias) and factual accuracy of this article (It lists only a southern baptist source) ARE disputed (right here). Please replace the tag. Mendori


 * I was referring to the recent edits of the anon I was replying to. Those edits are [here].  And you can see that they were considered disruptive, [here].  If you do not have a consistent identity on wikipedia, it is impossible to leave messages for you on your talk page.


 * I am pleased that you will be here to finish the article. I do not think it is anti-gay or contains any anti-gay bias.  You cannot criticise the article for being anti-gay without being somewhat specific about it is anti-gay.  If it links to a source that you think is anti-gay, that is not the same as the article being anti-gay. But before we replace the tag, lets discuss and improve.  OK? --Blue Tie 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is stupid. If the only source for an article has a bias, then the article will have a bias in it. Common sense. Until we have a source that's not biased in either direction, take down the article or replace the tag warning people it may be biased.


 * Actually it is not true if the only source has bias then the article will have bias. Bias can be removed by the editor. Also, there is more than one source for this article.  But if you think that the source is biased, why not find some other reviews or comments about the book? Please read WP:NPOV for ideas about how to resolve bias.  The only thing I think we need to steer clear of in such matters is "self published" reviews. As for the tag, that would be more appropriate if we are not able to improve the article.  On that score, I have tried to make a change to the text.  What do you think needs to be done to make it unbiased? By the way, there is no way that I will delete the fact that he co-wrote that book from the article.  That is a fact and stating it as a fact is not biased.  That some people consider it a call to action is obvious -- the editorial (not user) review on Amazon.com describes it as such.  Perhaps the one area of question is how influential it was.  I think I have removed anything that says either way whether it was influential.  I am looking for other reviews... I may have found one that I can reference.  Does that help?--Blue Tie 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall go with the first page of the essay, which is rather long.


 * The link to "homosexual agenda" does not go to that essay. In order not to clog up this page, I am removing the essay, because it is not relevant and as you said, it is long.  If it were a link to that satirical article, I could understand your concern.  However, it does not link there. Click on the link in the article again, to see if it works better for you.  It should go to an article about "Homosexual Agenda" which appears on wikipedia, not an essay. --Blue Tie 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That essay is the first piece of the book, therefore relevant. The aforementioned southern baptist source obviously does not mention this, as it would kind of wreck the site's evidence against the uber-scary homosexual agenda.


 * Where did you get the idea that essay is the first piece of the book? --Blue Tie 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead links
The reference section looks painfully thin since I deleted 3 of the 5 entries from the original list, copied here (only 2nd & 4th links work):


 * Article Sources
 * New England Genealogical Historic Society, Recent Passings by Gary Boyd Roberts
 * After the Ball: Why the Homosexual Movement has Won
 * Marshall Kirk Obituary
 * Announcement of Marshall Kirk's Passing on the soc.genealogy.medieval group
 * Marshall Kirk describes his headaches

EDIT NOTES 2013.04.11

1) The two cites to newenglandancestors.org now redirect to equivalent URLs at americanancestors.org and both return 404 errors. Found neither domain archived on Wayback or WebCite. Googling 'marshall kirk site:americanancestors.org' turned up 2 pages of links to articles by Mr. Kirk but no articles about him.

2) The latter of those two cites calls to an obituary announcement. The obituary page at http://www.sunjournal.com/node/317359 verifies many facts in the article, but being unfamiliar with wiki protocol, I didn't know whether this valid URL should be swapped in to replace the deleted source link or appended as an external link.

3) The final entry calls on a domain that no longer exists. Ran one quick google search for the domain name to see if the server or its contents might have simply relocated, but the result was neither fruitful nor promising.

4) Is Article Sources an appropriate section title? I don't recall seeing other articles use this title for the references section, but I've let it stand and defer the decision to the wiki archons.

76.102.197.4 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

etymology of erastes
I am removing the etymology for the article subject's pen name, currently reading:

"Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill", erastes, Greek for 'lover', being the root word of pederasty)"

as an amusing example of how adding accurate information can introduce serious bias, just as if someone introduce a sentence like, "Democrats (whose name shares a greek root with 'demagogue')..." or "Conservatives (whose name shares a latin root with 'servile')..." Technically something like wp:undue.Snarfblaat (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Erastes (Ancient Greece), an adult male in a relationship with a younger male, also known as the philetor
 * This is the definition of Erastes, it is a foreign word in an English language encyclopedia that user's will likely be unfamiliar with. I am returning this info to the article, as the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform not obscure. 2601:14B:4680:F870:4D51:FD93:F677:159 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Expand needed
I read the reffed source

"Give homosexual protectors a just cause." etc. https://web.archive.org/web/20080612003916/http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm

This article should thus be expanded why apart from metereology, he was so accurate in social predictions.

Zezen (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)