Talk:The Cartoon History of the Universe

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 :).

"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)


 * I think the solution is to remove the criticism section unless some references are cited. Critics "may" do anything. When they do, it's worth listing here. --Son of Somebody 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Following up, while we all appreciate the work you've done, Mattgenne--and I'll add that it's very well-written--the Criticism section is purely speculative. An encyclopedia can't pose questions as to what critics "may" do.  If we can cite some published criticisms, they are worthy of inclusion.  In addition, the Intended Audience section is similarly speculative.  The intended audience of any work of art is anyone who is interested in it, regardless of age (for instance).--Son of Somebody 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting choice; and upon refection, I agree. While I'm not distressed at cutting out those sections, the reason for including them had less to do with a desire to speculate, and more to do with modeling the Cartoon History entry after other Wiki entries that appear to have community-wide approval. I'd argue that The Cartoon History is a work of art/commerce that is making a current, ongoing impact. A precis of criticism seemed noteworthy—though, as you note, the criticism ought to be actual and not speculative.


 * Importantly, including a Criticisms section was also a way to codify and edit the contributions of Wiki writers who wanted to complain about this or that regarding Gonick's series. I didn't want to get into an edit war with, for example, a contibutor who insisted that Gonick hated Christians. I found that simply removing entries from a less-than-neutral contributor resulted in an edit war. My answer was to tailor the biased, Gonick-bashing contibution to a more NPOV, and then counter it with an explanation of what Gonick's true aim may have been. A stopgap solution, but a necessary one at the time.


 * It's difficult to engage biased contributors who don't use the Talk page as a platform, as I'm sure you know. Thanks again for the edit. Matt Genné 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mattgenne, I am much relieved that you are agreeable about the edit.--Son of Somebody 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Latest volume 2006 or 2007
Amazon has "Publisher: Collins (December 26, 2006)", but the book itself says ©2007. Which one to pick? - Afasmit 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazon is a secondary source. The book itself is the primary source. I'd go with the book. - Matt Genné 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Illustration style
I refined the syntax of this section and renamed it 1) to avoid confusion with the title of the article and 2) to more accurately represent what this brief (though important) section covers. Matt Genné 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cartoon History of the Universe Vol. 1.jpg
Image:Cartoon History of the Universe Vol. 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

volumes
just wondering it says in each book about 5 volumes each. Is this how they were always published or were they also published as separate volumes? If so maybe we should include these photos of these volumes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.2.238 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention there should be mention somewhere of the "Cartoon History of the Universe Volume 1" CD-ROM adaptation that was released for Windows 3.x computers a long long time ago. AFAIK no other volumes were ever turned into multimedia. WildKard (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem arose when the original underground comic books were republished together as a unit, they were labelled as "Volumes 1-7", rather than ISSUES 1-7. As far as I know, none of the later ones were ever published separately. It really should be chapters of the collected volumes 1, 2, 3 (for 19 total), but LG (or his publishers) continue to do it that way, continuing the confusion. CFLeon (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)