RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Ripley's Believe It or Not! (comic)

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (comic) | Result: Keep by a narrow margin[edit]

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (comic) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

  1. Does not really relate to RatWiki's mission 149.19.43.157 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Bumpf
    What the BON said. Vee (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    How does not relate to RatWiki's mission? It uses the name of a popular newspaper strip to claim the stories within are of the same quality as the newspaper strip. And for the first issues even uses those very newspaper strip to add authenticity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    Hard to see this as exactly missional, and if someone can make an argument that it is, they can easily rewrite a better article from scratch with low amounts of effort. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Abstaining, not worth any of the drama anymore. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    The lead clearly states that "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories." The fact that this was missed makes me wonder if some of the people asking for deletion have actual read the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Yes, it's on-mission. No, it's still not worth saving. Improving this article would mean rewriting basically everything in it. Might as well delete. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    If we nuked every badly written article we'd nuke about a 10th of the site. :-) --BruceGrubb (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    I would be in full support of doing that. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    IIUC hat is not what deletion is for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's been a mixed bag. Some deletion results of crappy articles are deleted, some aren't. It depends on how degrading the article quality is. In this case, the article has 0 references. It's Wikipedia counterpart has 54 references so it shouldn't be hard to restart from scratch. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    Uh the stories are the references!--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    There is no way to verify if that is actually what the stories are saying. Andrew5 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    I really don't understand this comment. Are you saying the summations are inaccurate or something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm saying, without sources, there is no way to see if it is false or true. Andrew5 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    And what sources do the Ripley's Believe It or Not! newspaper strips (such as this one) have within them? Seems to be a double standard there. Is the following what you are looking for?
    "Demon in the Glass Cage" (Issue #10, August 1968) claims the display of Jeremy Bentham body manifested a ghost when it was put into a storeroom rather than being on display. His body now sits at Student Centre at UCL--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    This has 54 references, so start citing. Andrew5 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    You do realize one of those references is in regarding "From 1965 until 1980, Gold Key Comics published the second Ripley's Believe It or Not! comic book, lasted for 94 issues." right?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but I don't see how a reference would be harmful per se.Andrew5 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    It took a devil of a time but found reference for "Sea Hags" (Issue #19; April 1970): "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press Press. ISBN 0517014343. — "Out of the livid clouds, with such deadening impact that the corpse-white, glutinous mass of fish bodies sank beneath the surface, came dark, winged shapes. Streaming out behind them, tangling together, were rags or dank feathers. Were these birds? Were they Harpies? Like a flash, I realized that they were the Dread Women of Moher feeding upon the Ghostly Catch at Drumnacrogh."--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. the examples aren't really even notable. Jake Holmesyell at me 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    "Spawn of the Wolf Pack" (Dec 1969), where it claimed that Kamala answered the call of her wolf pack and ran off with them, though other reports have her dying of either tuberculosis or typhoid fever is not notable?! She along with her sister has a freaking wikipedia article which has a far higher bar for notable than we do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    Ripley's Believe It or Not! Wikia has a whole section on the gold key comic which I am currently adding to.— Unsigned, by: BruceGrubb / talk / contribs
  4. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    IMHO there should be reasons with deletes so a reply can be made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. what is about it that makes it relevant? Edward the eight (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    It uses the name of a popular newspaper strip (Ripley's Believe It or Not! ) to claim the stories within are of the same quality as the newspaper strip. And its modern incarnation pulls from those very newspaper strips. In fact, from issue #1 (June 1965) to issue #9 (May 1968) it used relevant material from the newspaper strip to add to the authenticity of the other stories within the comic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. From the way it's written it's hard to tell if it was exposing nonsense claims or espousing them. Either way it could potentially be missional if this were made really clear. But even in that case the article would also need to explain why a comic book which ceased publication some 40 years ago is somehow relevant to our mission today.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    Please explain how "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories." "Some stories are blatantly made up ("Music that Charms") and yet are claimed to be entirely true.", and '"Music that Charms" (issue #43, Oct 1973) is an excellent example of the quality of this "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" comic. The story claims that in 1967 Edgecombe the American architect Alan Barlow was saved by the ghost of a woman who played music on a non functional organ so he could escape a Black Mamaba. One of the guides tells him that the ghost was that of a Miss Dennis who had died using the organ to pacify a Black Mamaba some 20 years previously. The clue that the story is fake is the fact snakes are deaf — a fact that was pointed out in one of the newspaper strips!' are unclear.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    So it seems to me there are three possibilities. 1. These stories were actually written from a skeptical point of view, but with subtle clues which clever people would interpret so as to understand the true skeptical meaning. This particularly clever dodge by the author might make the thing mission-worthy. 2. The stories are written from a credulous point of view by people who are not particular good at (for example) snake anatomy but they really want people to believe them. Again it could be mission-worthy. 3. They are just stories - like a vast number of ghost, vampire werewolf and vampire fiction which has been produced over the years. This would have scant interest to us.
    It seems to me that 3 is more likely. They are just stories which sometimes have mistakes. Trying to use these mistakes, or the author's style of writing, to infer that they were secretly trying to send messages in such a way that the initiated would would realize the author's "true intent" frankly strikes as conspiracy theory territory.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well 3 is out on its ear because the comic claims to be of the same quality as the newspaper strips and in fact used said strips in issues #1 to #9. Also there is stuff like "Vampire of the Schloss" (Issue #10, August 1968) which claims in 1961 a man buys a Schloss supposedly haunted by a vampire. When attacked by the vampire the man is told that driving an alpenstock into the grave will destroy it. The man is found dead of a heart attack haven driven the alpenstock through his coat. A variant of this story appeared as "The Grave" (The Twilight Zone, Oct 27, 1961) Heck the way it is written it might as well be the "The Grave" with the twist removed! More problematic is there are no real names to trace the story (both the man and the Schloss are unnamed) Yet the comic also has "Balloon Buster" (issue #5 June 1967) which tells the story of Frank Luke claiming if he had survived he would have been court-martialed and "The Red Knight of Germany" (Issue #3, November 1966) which details the fighting career of the Red Baron. According to the end of the story the Red Baron made a 3 point landing while mortally wounded. --BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    They still sound like common or garden ghost stories to me. Some of them may have plot holes or or be written tongue-in cheek - but I think confirmation bias is causing you to over-interpret this to find some hidden skeptical message.
    There is also a general "citation needed" problem - which others have pointed out. This is both in respect of what the authors intent actually was but also in respect of everything else. It's not just we we only have your word (or belief) in respect of what the author's original intent was; we also only have your word for what is the actual content of the stories themselves. I'm not suggesting that you are lying - but both these things would need to be referenced. And in respect of the author's intent it would need to be pretty explicitly referenced as well - not just inferred from one particular reading. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    I have never said what the author's original intent was. All I have pointed out is how each issue has either True Ghost Stories, True War Stories, True Demons and Monsters and/or Authentic! as well as Ripley's Believe It or Not! on the cover.
    Heck, I have no idea what the various author's original intent was because the stories are all over the place in terms of information provided allowing one to follow them back to any kind of source material. "Balloon Buster" and "The Red Knight of Germany" are easily back checkable but stories like "Vampire of the Schloss" are a nice road to nowhere. And then there is stuff like Major Weir ("The Devils Staff") which have their own set of issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Ok. If we don't (indeed can't) know that the stories were intended to promote skepticism - why do we have the article? Isn't it "just some stories"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sigh. 1) The comic has "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" on the cover which carries its own expectations. (If it was Grimm Tales of Terror, Twilight Zone, or Boris Karloff Thriller — close contempories — you would have a point but it is Ripley's Believe It or Not!). 2) Every Issue has either True or Authentic! slapped on the cover. 3) Because it is presenting stories of questionably reliability as True or Authentic! and using Ripley's Believe It or Not! to further add to the supposed accuracy of the stories within it is on mission.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. One less near-stub on the site. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It's an exposé on nonsensical claims. That sounds on-mission to me. It is pretty bare-bones, though. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. There is a lot of material in the comic and as the text explains "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    "Music that Charms" (issue #43, Oct 1973) is an excellent example of the quality of this "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" comic. The story claims that in 1967 Edgecombe the American architect Alan Barlow was saved by the ghost of a woman who played music on a non functional organ so he could escape a Black Mamaba. One of the guides tells him that the ghost was that of a Miss Dennis who had died using the organ to pacify a Black Mamaba some 20 years previously. The clue that the story is fake is the fact snakes are deaf — a fact that was pointed out in one of the newspaper strips!
    "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" carries with it a certain reputation and the very cover of issue #43 has "True Ghost Stories", Weird! Eerie!, Authentic!--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    "The Sea Hags" is an example of how hard it is to trace back these stories even when you have a piece of information. An insanely long search for "Drumnacrogha" produced "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press. ISBN 0517014343 (1981 edition). pg 185-195 — "Out of the livid clouds, with such deadening impact that the corpse-white, glutinous mass of fish bodies sank beneath the surface, came dark, winged shapes. Streaming out behind them, tangling together, were rags or dank feathers. Were these birds? Were they Harpies? Like a flash, I realized that they were the Dread Women of Moher feeding upon the Ghostly Catch at Drumnacrogh."
  3. I've been convinced. We have articles on equally notability less things. What matters is missionality, not notability. Vee (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's notable (has a Wikipedia article with 54 refs), but also is totally unsourced and has awful quality. It would be easier to start from scratch. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    That article is on the entire Ripley's Believe It or Not! franchise. The Gold Key comic only a small part of that franchise.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Plutocow (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. Missional. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. Although the article could be a bit clearer on this, my impression is that the newspaper comic prints fun facts, whereas the comic books published nonsense ghost stories under the same branding. Poking around online reviews suggests that some people really bought that the ghost stories are educational, so it seems missional to me. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    Not just "nonsense ghost stories" but "True War Stories" — Issues #3 (The Red Knight of Germany; The Incredible Sea Hunt of Sub E-11; The Lost Battalion) and #5 (The Last Kamikaze; The General Was a Spy — Text only story of Alexander Scotland who was supposedly known as General Schottlandt by German General Staff. This was told in The Two-Headed Spy (1958); Miracle of the Marne; Hand to Hand — Story of a battle on May 6, 1944 between a U-boat and US ship ending with a single hand grenade sinking the U-boat; Dead Man's Ambush - How a barrage killed three Germans manning a machine gun potentially saving the life of Douglas MacArthur; The Balloon Buster — Story of Frank Luke claiming if he had survived he would have been court-martialed)
  8. Per all. Prefer to err on keep to improve rather than scrub an article with some potential. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    How is there potential for a comic book that ceased production 40 years ago and has no sources, in addition to a hostile author refusing to add any? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Considering edit 12:11, 10 December 2022 (one hour an 2 minutes before your post) has a reference regarding Sea Hags and some of the pieces refer back to wikipedia articles (and other places) the claim "refusing to add any" is blatantly false. Heck a variant of The fiery coach of Major Weir appears on the cover issue #39 (April 1973).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    The only reference is a comic gallery. There should be more sources. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Again untrue — "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press. ISBN 0517014343 (1981 edition) is in the article. One thing you have been avoiding like the plague is why the newspaper script gets a free pass but the comic needs references out the wazoo. I mean take "After Ed Crosgan of Bristol, Penn, died, the family dog Polo disappeared and was found Waiting at the Funeral home!" (March 03, 2004) — but when did Ed Crosgan of Bristol, Penn die? When was the dog found and what was the name of the funeral home?. Then there is "Scientists at Stanford University have developed "ibrain" technology With which they hope to translate the brain waves of paralyzed English physicist Stephen Hawking!" (January 11, 2013) A little googling will produce the relevant article but then you find the details are wrong. "(iBrain was invented by) Philip Low, a 32-year-old neuroscientist who is chief executive of NeuroVigil, a company based in San Diego". The only Standford reference is in regard to associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences Ruth O’Hara of Stanford University Medical School planning to use iBrain for autism studies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Then why are none of the refs in MLA format? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Because cite book (which comes from Wikipedia) uses a totally different format. MLA generally has Author; Title; Publisher, year published. Cite book by contrast is closer to APA which is Author last name; first name; year published; Title; publisher; isbn (when available)
    cite book in raw wiki text looks like this: {{cite book|last1=Reynolds|first1=James|date=1947|title=Ghosts in Irish Houses|publisher=New York , Creative Age Press Press|isbn=0517014343}} which when rendered results in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press Press. ISBN 0517014343. .
    For anyone interested, The University of Pittsburgh has Citation Styles: APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian, IEEE which details how the various citation formats are supposed to be used and set up. And yes there are a lot of places where this site (and Wikipedia itself) drops the ball in the proper use of APA and in the case of articles like John Frum, Jesus, and Ghost APA and other formats are used in the same article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    For those that are interested (and for @Andrew5 who says that the claims cannot be backed up because there are no sources), the entire series is available on ReadComicsOnline.li. Be forewarned: this site has a lot of seamy popups and javascript nasties, so an ad blocker and safe browsing habits are strongly encouraged. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Seamy popups, javascript nasties, along with a 'copyright means right to copy anything we want' mentality is precisely why I didn't mention that site. The .ru and .to versions of the site don't work showing there is an effort to shut sites like that down. Side note a search for 'Ripleys Believe It or Not 01-43 (1965)' can cough up a blogspot site that has issues #1-#43 in cbz/cbr format.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  9. I see MLA. It's satisfactory now. Andrew5 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    Don't under stand why, given {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, and {{cite news}} all use a APA variant (which is used by Education, Psychology, and the Sciences), one would want to use MLA which is for the Humanities. Side note the Chicago/Turabian style is generally used by Business, History, and the Fine Arts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Move to draft, maybe we can salvage something out of this unless there are already better resources for this thing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's ordinarily a good idea, but who among us has even seen or even heard of thes comics? If they were available on the Internet Archive, that would at least be a starting point for improving the article, but I didn't see them there. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    Newsflash, Internet Archive doesn't have everything. The Grand Comics Database has a cover gallery though.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

From the way it's written it's hard to tell if it was exposing nonsense claims or espousing them. Either way it could potentially be missional if it were better written. But even in that case the article would also need to explain why a comic book which ceased publication some 40 years ago is somehow relevant to our mission today.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Moved to delete vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  • It's missional, but no citations after 3 years is bad. Does @BruceGrubb, the page's creator, have anything to say? Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • What do you want me to add? The Contents of all 94 issues going from June 1965 to Feb 1980?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    You could at least the Month/Year of publication for each issue cited. Covers for those issues could be downloaded from the comics.org site and uploaded to RW for the page in a gallery at the bottom. There also seems to be a third iteration of the comic published by Dark Horse Comics (Ripley's Believe It or Not! § Comic booksWikipedia) that you could mention in the lede. Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    Uh upload now states that the picture must be your own work (This is my own work, checkbox) which the covers most definitely are not. Linked to the aforementioned Grand Comics Database gallery.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    I just uploaded an image that was not my own work 2 days ago under the Fair Use license tag. Bongolian (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    "This is my own work (checkbox) I confirm that I am uploading this file following the terms of service and licensing policies on RationalWiki." It is just badly worded and implies there is no Fair Use license tag for images.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • RewriteJakester499 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • what jakester499 said. And reading through all the comments, I think BruceGrubb would be the best person for the job since he seems to know alot about this comic. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Ripley%27s_Believe_It_or_Not!_(comic)&oldid=2510747"