Talk:Tract (literature)

Cleanup?

Anyone have any thoughts as to what exactly we should clean up here? --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent point. The purpose of the tag has been OBE. As such, it has been removed. Cheers. Folajimi 10:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup. Removed the Ray Comfort promo box. Removed the Million Dollar Bill current event and Miscellany heading, putting an anchor link to the information already in Wikipedia under The Great News Network. Expanded the very limited "Notable modern authors and publishers", though this needs more development. Most of this is no-brainer stuff that needs no discussion. The article should focus on the the history and development of tracts. Holford 10:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable authors and publishers

Why are there links directly into Ray Comfort's online store? The links are not necessary and should be removed. First of all, Ray Comfort is not the standard of Gospel Tracts, nor is Bill Bright or Jack Chick. Gospel tracts go back much further than these contemporary writers. It seems that the intent of the article is to sell tracts for Ray Comfort, quite honestly, and this should be disdained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who does a lot of editing for the articles re: Comfort, The Way of the Master, etc., you're probably right. However (I can't remember if I put them there or not!), they might work as sources for the article. I've right now deleted all of them except the Da Vinci Code, which I've changed to their newsletter on the topic, b/c that sentence absolutely needs a source. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you removed most of the links into Comfort's site, but honestly that wasn't the only point I made. I said, "Ray Comfort is not the standard of Gospel Tracts, nor is Bill Bright or Jack Chick." Why don't you write an article of real worth that traces the full history of Gospel tracts instead of something that emphasizes 3 (questionable) men that are presently living? Again, it seems evident that the point of this article is to promote Ray Comfort, who is at best questionable and at worst an heretic. I am of the latter opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, please sign your articles with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, this article would not be appropriate http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tract_%28literature%29&action=editfor your opinion on Comfort. Any verifiable facts supporting your belief that he is a heretic should be addressed (of course, with a NPOV) at his article.

Thirdly, my take on the list was that it was modern tract publishers, to parallel with the etymology. I've added that word to the title to help clarify that, as well as deleted the DVC sentence and streamlined it as best as I can; the odd tracts his group produces are I feel definitely notable. Personally, I don't know the full history of gospel tracts, aside from the "etymology" section. And finally , I felt that the million-dollar controversy is also highly notable and relevant to this page. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellany

This section has no business being here. It may be an interesting news story related to tracts, but it is best served exactly where it is, in the article about The Great News Network. It is not a current event related to tracts themselves, and if it were, it would need to have a current event tag. The whole thing consists of block quotes from and links to The Great News Network website.

This article, or any other Wikipedia article, should not be an excuse for promoting Ray Comfort or anyone else. A review of edits by MessengerAtLWU seems to indicate this mistaken understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. The re-adding of this material is indicative POV persistence. There is nothing particularly unique, notable, or particularly encyclopedic about the Ray Comfort tracts. That they are even mentioned amongst "Notable modern authors and publishers" is questionable, but by some measure reasonable.

The Etymology section has nothing whatsoever to do with etymology. If someone were to re-write this as a History section, that would be helpful and just a bit more relevant for a Wikipedia article.

Ideally this article needs a complete overhaul to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Holford 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I edit most of those articles because I like their stuff, and I always attempt to maintain a NPOV. I edit the pages that I am most interested in. By this logic, however, I also have unhealthy POVs towards my hometown Manassas, Virginia, my college Longwood University in Farmville, and the University of Virginia, which I am a fan of. Also, report me to the admins, because I very often revert vandalism, which proves I'm on a crusade against newbies and only support the elite and seasoned editors. You should also speak to Homestarmy, for his apparent POVs like mine.

If you have an issue, please tell me via my talk page seperately, or the administration of Wikipedia, not just badmouthing me in the third person on the article's talk page; I am certain you have the best intentions, but that is exactly how it comes across. I have the oops, please be nice, and no personal attacks userboxes up on my userbox page for a reason.

Here's a compromise: how about we eliminate the miscellany section altogether and add a sentence such as, "In June 2006, the Secret Service seized 8,300 of the bills from a group called The Great News Network in Texas." In fact, the more and more I think about it, you're right: it is way too much, and users should be redirected the GNN page. This morning when I reverted the miscellany section, I hadn't seen the updates to the talk pages, and had just woke up, so I didn't think things through. For that, I apologize.

When trying to look at it as objectively as possible, you're right. The "etymology" section should be retitled to "history" and probably updated to reflect something to reflect a more worldwide perspective, and more than just a religious POV (obviously, political groups use tract-like brochures as well). I however know nothing about tract history. Do you? Yes, "somebody" should, but who, and where would we go to find out about it? I usually start my research with Wikipedia. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for an offense given.Holford 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article still needs more content, but I have reformatted it to reflect discussion so far. I expanded to a small extent on the history of tracts. I removed the notables list and placed most of the information within the narrative of the article. Comments? Holford 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Much more comprehensive. As the political section is more widely covered in pamphlet (albeit not much more), I've added a link under the section to there (for the moment, at least, until we can achieve a greater parity between the religious and political sections). MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tract (content)

It seems to me that "tract" today also means a political text irrespective of the medium by which it is published, so that a newspaper article may be properly called a tract if its content conforms to the religious or political requirements thereof. --Ludvikus 12:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More Images Please

I think that the one image this article has of a tract is a poor image and there needs to be at least one more image of a tract. I think an image of a Chick tract (if one can be found that isn't copyrighted) would be very useful. --PaladinWriter (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)