Talk:The Hound of Heaven

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

tHE hOUND OF hEAVEN

I changed the beginning from "the Hound of Heaven is a long religious poem" to "the Hound of Heaven is a 182 line religious poem." 182 lines isn't really all that long is it.

Snoopy as "The Hound of Heaven" [1] Ileanadu (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some confusion regarding what a secondary source is. For example, if you say that HoH was referenced in The Gospel According to Peanuts and cite The Gospel According to Peanuts, that's a primary source. IPC/influence/legacy content should use secondary sources that indicate the significance of references. Of the current Influence section, points 5, 7, and 9 are unsourced while 4, 6, 8, and 10 cite primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's fix it rather than wipe out the whole section. Here is one for The Gospel According to Peanuts - http://www.mbird.com/2012/01/youre-a-hopeless-case-charlie-brown-law-and-gospel-according-to-peanuts/ for starters. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But what makes a blog a reliable source? See WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I am saying is you were wiping out a whole section because the citations need improving but I see the section as helpful to wikipedians. By your own count 1-3 were ok but you deleted them anyway. I think Wikipedia is better having this in it and it is our duty to find improved citations or leave as it is.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can find improved citations, that's great, but WP:V makes clear that unsourced and poorly sourced material can be removed until such time as reliable citations are found. It is our "duty" to source what we can and leave out what we cannot. See also WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me time - I am quite busy at the time. Feel free to contribute as well. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote with Red Rose to leave it in and work on improving the sources as well as the content of the article.... cheers to all... Risk Engineer (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are busy with working and I just got back from a trip - months are needed to complete the discovery of third party citations. Please stop deleting the posts until we can correct them, Nikkimaria. Thank you Risk Engineer for your support in this. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN: as appropriate sources are added, the content can be shown, but it shouldn't remain in the article indefinitely while unsourced or poorly sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is reading HoH as part of his breakfast routine in episode 1 minute 13..... I propose editing that into the article

Risk Engineer (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure but be sure to use a third party citation to back it up. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]