Talk:Prickly City

message: Quotes from Shrubville that indicate that it's not legitimate analysis. Here's some "monumental bias" for you:
"As has been noted for the past 2 and 3/4 years, however, clever doesn't live in Prickly City. No forwarding address."
"not to mention believing that someone's humor is wearing thin"
"In case you're reading this, Mr. Stantis, that's me laughing AT you, not with."
"The only difference now is that the majority of Americans have figured out that the Republican leadership is a failure and a joke."
"Mr. Stantis, my diagnosis is that you're an unfunny hack."
"I've just about had it with Scott Stantis and Prickly City. It's as if he's trying to produce the absolute worst comic strip in the land. Someone needs to tell him to stop trying - the title is all his."
He also presents unproven things as facts:
"We know where the Republicans stand. They support illegal wiretapping" (still in appeals process)
"knowing you somehow still have a comic strip BECAUSE you're a Bush Republican" (despite the fact that a UCLA study showed that newspapers lean heavily leftward: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 )
Here's some evidence of him not even knowing the terminology he's mocking. This is in relation to Winslow, the liberal character, selling carbon credits:
"Winslow's bright idea is to steal Lucy's psychiatry stand and charge people for...carbon indulgence? So they're going to pay Winslow, the smelly stupid stinky hippy green liberal, to actually use up more carbons? And he'll happily do it, because he's a greedy ne'er do well who could care less about saving the environment?"
I advise him to read this wiki article: indulgences. "Carbon credits" (or as Stantis refers to them "indulgences," which seems like a clever enough parallel and observation to me) are actually a liberal invention; rich Hollywood liberals and Al Gore purchase them from people with small carbon footprints to offset their massive carbon footprint. The logic is that they're "buying" the right to pollute from someone who isn't using up their allotment of pollution. I mean, it's really kind of pathetic how little the guy at Shrubville really understands about his own party's platforms. Read on:
"Let's put aside the idiocy of having the liberal in the strip want to destroy the environment. Why would anyone pay Winslow - who doesn't own a car, or a house, or anything as far as I can tell - to burn fossil fuels? Why not just do it themselves? Or does Stantis have a secret desire to burn even more oil than he already does? It's yet ANOTHER case of Stantis coming up with what he thinks is a clever idea, scratching it out on a napkin at lunch, then slapping it together by the Friday deadline without actually reasoning out what the heck it's supposed to mean."
And this stuff is all from the first three or four entires. This is not legitimate commentary. This is not thoughtful analysis. This is a smear-job, pure and simple. --Pellucid 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations of bias by Pellucid

message: Note that criticism of the strip must be sourced.  This does not mean providing a link to the strip, but providing a link to criticism from a reliable source.  We can't use primary sources to back up our own personal criticism of the strip; this is original research. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.  Of particular interest is this passage: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no position C advanced, just citations for A and B. It is not original research. --Orat Perman 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, the word "problems" could be interpreted as advancing position C. I have changed the word. --Orat Perman 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To meet the standard of inclusion, these problems or issues or whatever must have been commented upon by a reliable source.  We can't simply list problems or issues that we see with the strip.  This is prohibited original research.  Unless a reliable source has commented upon the strip's timeliness, this section must be removed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And yes, there clearly is a position C advanced, and that position is that Prickly City has issues of timeliness.  But even if you disagree that the material in question is prohibited OR synthesis, it is still original research unless a commentator has written about this issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: * Let's try to break out of this morass. I don't have any problem with Shrubville being listed among external links in this article, as it appears to be the most notable on-line collection of criticism against the strip (for whatever little that's worth). It seems to me that the real issue is whether the site is a reliable reference to back up arguments made in the article. Perhaps we should work toward some consensus on which critical claims should be described on Wikipedia article and which criticisms are best published elsewhere. --Dystopos 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it neutral to provide an external link to a smear site? Does this mean I can start putting http://blamebush.typepad.com/ as an external link on articles about liberal blogs? --Pellucid 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy on external links is Wikipedia:External links. Many people would read that policy more strictly than I do. In my opinion it's relevant. To me the bigger issue is NPOV and original research in the text of the article. --Dystopos 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the "Links to be avoided" section, items 2 and 11 apply to Shrubville. --Pellucid 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet item 4 in "links to be considered" gives us greater leeway with reliability. In my opinion, this decision will have to be made by consensus and appeals to reason rather than by persistence and appeals to authority. Do you think we could compromise on the external link and focus our efforts on cleaning up the POV in the article itself? --Dystopos 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prickly City writers are in no way knowledgeable. They attacked Stantis for not continuing a storyline on Sunday (something almost no comic strips do). They attacked Stantis for his comparison of the concept of "carbon credits" to the concept of "indulgences" without understanding what either of the two concepts meant. These errors are only the ones they've made in the past two weeks. --Pellucid 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not accurate. The Shrubville writers did not "attack Stantis for not continuing a storyline on Sunday." After YOU posted a comment on Shrubville that the Saturday storyline would continue on Sunday, a Shrubville writer expressed disappointment that you got their hopes up. You have not provided any evidence that the Shrubville writers don't understand what "carbon credits" are, only that they missed that Stantis' reference to "carbon indulgences" was apparently intended as code for "carbon credits." --Orat Perman 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my comment was posted after midnight, so it was Sunday at the time. Additionally, Carmen specifically said "shouldn't that say 'carbon offsets'," another acceptable term for carbon credits. It wasn't "intended as code;" it was a very clever parallel that you'd simply need to have a basic grasp of theology or history to understand. If one is not intelligent enough to understand the humor, then of course one is going to think that the comic is bad. --Pellucid 16:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminder, WP:CIVIL. --Dystopos 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restart

message: The tribune reference is not notable enough for the inclusion of the link or even to start a separate Shrubville article. I know this because my entry for BlameBush! uses a similar reference (a blog report published by the Wall Street Journal) for notability and it was deemed insufficient so the article is going to be deleted. --Pellucid 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that a subject was deemed unworthy of its own article does not demonstrate that it shouldn't be mentioned on another page. Nobody has even attempted to start a separate page for Shrubville. Unless you can provide a reliable source calling Shrubville a smear site, you really ought to knock off the defamation. --Orat Perman 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's stupid. You should have to prove that it's a VALID link, I don't have to prove that it's an invalid one. You have consistently failed to even attempt to. --Pellucid 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already pointed to a reliable source (Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune ) that calls Shrubville "a blog devoted to analyzing Prickly City." You have not provided any source whatsoever for your repeated assertion that Shrubville is a smear site. --Orat Perman 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is devoted to analyzing something else doesn't mean it's devoted to doing it fairly, accurately, and intelligently. I've shown repeatedly that Shrubville is neither fair, accurate, nor intelligent. You have shown nothing. --Pellucid 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't "shown" that. You have only asserted it repeatedly, much like your claim that Shrubville a smear site. You continue to refuse to back that one up with a reliable source. --Orat Perman 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS would only apply if he tried to insert a statement in the article saying "Shrubville is a smear site." Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I've had time to have a look at the link issue, I'm going to have add my vote in favor inclusion, though I certainly don't condone the tacky methods link this that have been used to push the link. The name drop in the Chicago Tribune definately isn't sufficient to sustain an article on "Shrubville", but I think that, coupled with the fact that it has a two year archive so it's a continuing enterprise, is enough for it to be included in "external links" IMHO.  This doesn't mean I think it should be used as a source or that I think it should be given it's own section with the silly heading of "analysis".  A link is as far as it should go. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrubville in no way qualifies to be an external link, as has been discussed time and time again. Read the above discussion. --Pellucid 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On a side-note, I assume you're in favor of adding a link to BlameBush! at the bottom of every wiki entry about a liberal blog? --Pellucid 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just ridiculous.  Patently absurd analogies won't get us anywhere. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain how the situation is different in any way. --Pellucid 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a blog devoted to a single targeted subject.  Your analogy would have us imagine that we are proposing sticking it in any article about a comic strip.  If you want to discuss the merits of the link, let's do that, but let's not waste our time on this silliness. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BlameBush is a blog specifically devoted to the parody of liberal blog catch phrases and talking points. It is just as relevant a criticism of almost all liberal blogs as Shrubville is to Prickly City. --Pellucid 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, explain. --Pellucid 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribune reference

message: * As a longstanding site devoted to Prickly City with at least one verifiable mention (in a... blog), Shrubville probably merits mention here even though it seems to be entirely devoted to snarkiness and devoid of informational content. I have made an attempt to create that mention in an encyclopedic way. I did not provide a link, but it would not be entirely out of place in the External links section. -- I also reworded some of the items under the "controversies" heading because they were not neutral in tone. And I tinkered with the formatting and fixed a bad paragraph break. --Dystopos 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Shrubville consistently makes huge errors in its analysis and fails to consider standard comic book conventions. It is not notable; it has almost no following and generates almost no commentary that has any impact on Prickly City or the world. Just because it was mentioned in passing in a long list of "things on the internet" does not make it notable enough for inclusion. --Pellucid 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, nobody has even addressed the huge section of allegations of bias and factual inaccuracy that I posted above. --Pellucid 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * We don't have to proofread Shrubville to acknowledge that there is a consensus to include a mention of it in this article. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Because their application requires judgment, appeals to policy are means of reaching consensus, not excuses to override it. Please respect your fellow editors. --Dystopos 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying fuck wiki policy, we want to add a smear site so we're adding it? I'm sorry, I will not respect my fellow editors' decisions when those decisions are to blatantly ignore wiki policy and include material in an alleged "encyclopedia" that would NEVER and I mean NEVER be found in a professional or even semi-professional quality encyclopedia. --Pellucid 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of policy is not the only interpretation. We are not including material from Shrubville by mentioning that it exists. Under what policy do you think it is improper for the existence of Shrubville to be noted in the article? I'm looking at Wikipedia's key policies and it appears to me that you're willing to "fuck" numbers 1 and 3 in order to pursue your personal idea of what satisfies number 5. --Dystopos 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts

message: Among the variety of tags Pellucid dumped on the page are "its factual accuracy is disputed" and "its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words." Which facts are disputed? Which words does he believe are weasel words? --Orat Perman 16:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting Shrubville as an unbiased analysis is factually inaccurate. Maybe if the entry said "a website devoted to making fun of Prickly City" or something. Shrubville wasn't "cited" it was "mentioned;" the weasel-word implies that it's somehow more authoritative than it really is (that is to say, not in any way authoritative). --Pellucid 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a bit of an overreaction to slap on the weasel word tag without first voicing your objection on the talk page. But I don't have any objection to changing "cited" to "mentioned" and removing the tag. Since the article doesn't present Shrubville as "unbiased analysis" — it calls it "a weblog critical of Prickly City" — it seems appropriate to remove that tag as well. But I'll wait to hear other opinions before performing either edit. --Orat Perman 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I have removed the sentence "Although the character has been referred to as Winslow during the strip's run, Scott Stantis called him Winston in his July 17, 2007 podcast." because I believe it to be rather trivial. The contributor also seems to believe that the slip of the tongue on Stantis' part amounts to an alternate name for the character. I think that's ridiculous. Given the history of edits originating from contributors to a website devoted to ridiculing this strip, I would consider it incumbent upon the anonymous contributor to cite a noteworthy reference for the claim that this verbal error has any import at all. --Dystopos 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * If you think it's news, tell it to the press. I think it was nothing more than a mistake. Until a reputable media outlet makes something of this, your original research is more suited to a blog post than to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not how it works here. If you want it in the article, you are the one who must show proof that it is significant. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus you must demonstrate why it is relevant and significant. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Winston

message: Maybe Kevin has been "minor" in the past, and maybe he will be in the future, but in the last months of 2010 the story line was about his election to the (United States) Senate and he was in the strip almost every day. 
As for the political "slant" of the strip, in 2010 Stantis seemed to be pretty much "equal opportunity" in his take on things. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin a "minor recurring character" in Prickly City? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Pricklycity.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pricklycity.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pricklycity.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The item lists "Honey Bunny" as a minor character, but in the Comic the character is listed as "Hunny Bunny", as for example, here.  
framed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:C100:3307:ACF1:1ABD:36E6:2C91 (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Characters 

message: Substituted at 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Don't think the use of 'mulatto' in the intro paragraph is appropriate.  As noted on Wikipedia at mulatto, this word in U.S. usage is now archaic and often insulting. Moreover, the strip's author has refused to define the character's race so specifically. He said in a Washington Post interview "I have never said what Carmen's racial makeup is....And I never will reveal it."  In the same interview he does describe her as a "girl of color," so I will edit the article to say that, and add the reference to the WP interview. Regionrat1234 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a young mulatto girl"