This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The new article written this morning claims HarperCollins; the existing article here claims Rupert Murdoch. The website seems to go along with HarperCollins? This should be cleared up, of course. Bill 12:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1988 – Zondervan becomes a company of HarperCollinsPublishers, one of the world's largest publishing companies. http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Company/History.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan
In 1987, Harper & Row was acquired by News Corporation. http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/companyProfile.aspx
Rupert Murdoch is the chairman, chief executive officer, and founder of News Corporation. News Corporation
Although it is true that Rupert Murdoch is not the sole owner of the company, he is in a position to exert a huge amount of control over the company. I suggest that the above be included in the main article. m.j.hymowitz ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins; HarperCollins is owned by News International; News International is owned by Murdoch.
"she ruined their family" ????
Harper Collins is owned by NewsCorp (NewsCorp own News International). Rupert Murdoch is a signiifact shareholder in NewsCorp, but doesn't own it - it is a publicly traded company.
Why? what difference does it make? i wrote it that way because i was stating it was the employees claim and those are his words and the words he claims his employer used to describe his "dismissal". i don't think many people would be confused as to what "let go" implies, and the source is there. i'm not going to make a stink about the changing of two words but if you are going to change it to "improve it" then just do it. but if youre going to write maybe we should be more clear than "let go) as a reason then please say why because such a moot change + your comment comes across as changing for changes sake like some teacher that just needs to correct a student for the sake of feeling superior to the student. maybe i just feel this way because im frustrated with pedantic and pissy editors on wikipedia and you didnt mean it the way i sensed it, but i doubt that. at least that's the only thing you found "wrong" with it.
Lusitano Transmontano 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I reduced the prominence given to this - it doesn't seem to have been that major an incident on the web.
-- Casaubonian 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of controversies surrounding ... ... ... Chinese printing facilities to produce Bibles.
These seem more to do with controversy/criticisms than recent developments. Should there be a separate controversy section? I think moving this block to the criticisms section would be best. Perhaps also changing the name of the sections from "Criticisms" to "Controversy".
Recent developmentsThere have been a number of controversies surrounding Zondervan in recent years. In 1988, Zondervan became a division of Harper Collins Publishers, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. This meant that the firm now belongs to an organization that also publishes non-Christian books. |
The Storykeepers is an animated video series produced by Zondervan. This article is listed as orphaned, and I think it could use a link from this article, as Zondervan is its creator. Jargon777 ( talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst Pyromarketing was published by HarperCollins, it became a dispute with Zondervan, because it was edited by an editor at Zondervan, and describes the marketing techniques used by Zondervan in promoting The Purpose Filled series. jonathon ( talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the Bible translations that Zondervan owns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.21.86 ( talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has no relation to lawsuits on God. It is about a publishing company not article on Christianity. Why was this included?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.32.51 ( talk) 3:21:36, 20 March 2009
I've removed all recent edits from user Jsharpminor. Wild conspiracy theories about bookkeeping fraud, Satanic and Pornographic connections have no place in this article. If you wish to add these they need to be discussed on the talk page first. Basileias ( talk) 03:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Let's discuss this, point-by-point.
Fact: The Zondervan article (as it currently is, before any revisions by me) contains 12 references. I'll go through them point by point. Seven, listed below, are Zondervan, or its parent company, HarperCollins.
1. ^ Zondervan History
2. ^ James Ruark and Ted Engstrom, The House of Zondervan, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
3. ^ Zondervan - Maureen Girkins Appointed President and CEO of Zondervan
4. ^ Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will Be Done, New York: HarperCollins, 1995, p.690.^ Zondervan, Singspiration, Singcord, Milk & Honey
5. ^ Zondervan Press Release
10. ^ [1]
11. ^ Zondervan.com
The rest, following, are mostly press releases from Zondervan (or copies thereof), and together, state nothing more than the fact that Zondervan is in fact connected with Logos, Benson Music, etc.
6. ^ Zondervan, Singspiration, Singcord, Milk & Honey
7. ^ a b "Zondervan-Paragon Pact Carved Out New Benson Co.". CCM Magazine 3 (4): 32. October 1980. ISSN 1524-7848.
8. ^ Benson Music
9. ^ Logos.com
12. ^ Christianretailing.com[edit]
The third-party template ought to stay. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a well-documented fact, and there are few or no references to it on the article itself. This is because I am currently gathering them. One reference is already in place; several more will follow. In fact, Zondervan did experience several lawsuits during the buyout era because the poor bookkeeping masked the losses of tens of millions of dollars. Just because material is yet-to-be-sourced does not mean that it is incorrect. You're more than welcome to research it yourself and help me write the article.
The Satanism connection was discussed, and I can see from carefully reviewing the talk page that this may be problematic to include.
Before dismissing every source I referenced out of hand, please note that several of these sources were, in fact, major news outlets -- mostly in this section. I'd encourage you to check them out via the article history. Rick Warren also came under heavy fire for it.
Please respond and dispute any or all of these.
Also, just by-the-by: you also ought to note that editing (or reverting) during an active edit is generally considered to be bad form. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I can continue if you make me do so. Jsharpminor ( talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A number of controversies have surrounded Zondervan, many of which result simply from its parent companies' holdings.
In 1984, before its buyout by HarperCollins, irregularities in Zondervan's bookkeeping had led to losses in the millions of dollars, and sanctions by the SEC. [1] A disgruntled investor initiated a lawsuit, which was settled for $3.6 million dollars in 1989. [2]
Zondervan came under fire for being owned by HarperCollins, who also owns Avon Books, the publisher of Anton LaVey's ' The Satanic Bible'. [3] citation needed
News Corp. and its CEO, Rupert Murdoch, also own British Sky Broadcasting, and its network of both licensed and fully-owned pornographic channels, [4] as well as a large stake in DirecTV, a major purveyor of pornography. [5] [6] For this, both Zondervan and Rick Warren, Murdoch's pastor, have come under fire from some conservative Christian groups. [7]
Zondervan itself, however, publishes several anti-pornography works, [8] and responded to the accusation, saying, “While Zondervan has a financial reporting relationship with HarperCollins, the company operates autonomously on a day-to-day basis. In fact, our parent company strongly encourages Zondervan to stay true to our mission and core Christian values.” [9]
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
You might also wish to take note of "Arguments to avoid in edit wars":
You've used most of these. Jsharpminor ( talk) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's my 3O. Zondervan seem to have acknowledged by their denial that issue(s) exist due their non-christian parent company. This much is notable for the article. So are Zondervan's sourced financial actions. But the specific issues that Jsharpminor has gone to lengths to document (pornography, satanism) are common in any debate on spiritual values and not exclusive to christianity or Zondervan. Only if one can document that Zondervan has launched a focused and widely noted campaign on an issue is it notable. Publishing a couple of books by anti-pornography writers no more makes Zondervan a notable anti-pornography campaigner than News Corp is made a notable pornographist by virtue of having some investments in pornographic media. Certainly some "interesting" or contradictory connections can be argued but by WP:OR we cannot generate criticism to put into the article. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved this thread from my talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk)
12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input on the
Zondervan Talk page. However please review the financial issue again. Jsharpminor writes "tens of millions." You can't find that term in either source he supplied, unless I missed it which I'm willing to take lumps for. While the mention of financial issues has sourcing, the comment "tens of millions" doesn't. Again, he's trying to generate criticism for the sake of just generating it. Why exaggerate the source?
Basileias (
talk)
12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I actually had an exact figure somewhere (it was something on the order of $56.7 million), but of course I won't attempt to add that unless I can find a good source for it. I'll research where exactly the "tens of millions" came from and be back with you. Jsharpminor ( talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article used as reference placing Milk and Honey (only) in the 1980s actually only proves that M&H was in operation by then.
Several Christian bands recorded on Milk and Honey label in the late 1970s. For example, the Renaissance released their album A Tradition (ZLP-3064S) on Milk and Honey in 1978. Selah (from Ohio) released "With Clouds" on Milk and Honey in 1975.
Paul Race ( talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Paul Race ( talk) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The new article written this morning claims HarperCollins; the existing article here claims Rupert Murdoch. The website seems to go along with HarperCollins? This should be cleared up, of course. Bill 12:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1988 – Zondervan becomes a company of HarperCollinsPublishers, one of the world's largest publishing companies. http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Company/History.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan
In 1987, Harper & Row was acquired by News Corporation. http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/companyProfile.aspx
Rupert Murdoch is the chairman, chief executive officer, and founder of News Corporation. News Corporation
Although it is true that Rupert Murdoch is not the sole owner of the company, he is in a position to exert a huge amount of control over the company. I suggest that the above be included in the main article. m.j.hymowitz ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins; HarperCollins is owned by News International; News International is owned by Murdoch.
"she ruined their family" ????
Harper Collins is owned by NewsCorp (NewsCorp own News International). Rupert Murdoch is a signiifact shareholder in NewsCorp, but doesn't own it - it is a publicly traded company.
Why? what difference does it make? i wrote it that way because i was stating it was the employees claim and those are his words and the words he claims his employer used to describe his "dismissal". i don't think many people would be confused as to what "let go" implies, and the source is there. i'm not going to make a stink about the changing of two words but if you are going to change it to "improve it" then just do it. but if youre going to write maybe we should be more clear than "let go) as a reason then please say why because such a moot change + your comment comes across as changing for changes sake like some teacher that just needs to correct a student for the sake of feeling superior to the student. maybe i just feel this way because im frustrated with pedantic and pissy editors on wikipedia and you didnt mean it the way i sensed it, but i doubt that. at least that's the only thing you found "wrong" with it.
Lusitano Transmontano 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I reduced the prominence given to this - it doesn't seem to have been that major an incident on the web.
-- Casaubonian 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of controversies surrounding ... ... ... Chinese printing facilities to produce Bibles.
These seem more to do with controversy/criticisms than recent developments. Should there be a separate controversy section? I think moving this block to the criticisms section would be best. Perhaps also changing the name of the sections from "Criticisms" to "Controversy".
Recent developmentsThere have been a number of controversies surrounding Zondervan in recent years. In 1988, Zondervan became a division of Harper Collins Publishers, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. This meant that the firm now belongs to an organization that also publishes non-Christian books. |
The Storykeepers is an animated video series produced by Zondervan. This article is listed as orphaned, and I think it could use a link from this article, as Zondervan is its creator. Jargon777 ( talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst Pyromarketing was published by HarperCollins, it became a dispute with Zondervan, because it was edited by an editor at Zondervan, and describes the marketing techniques used by Zondervan in promoting The Purpose Filled series. jonathon ( talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the Bible translations that Zondervan owns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.21.86 ( talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has no relation to lawsuits on God. It is about a publishing company not article on Christianity. Why was this included?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.32.51 ( talk) 3:21:36, 20 March 2009
I've removed all recent edits from user Jsharpminor. Wild conspiracy theories about bookkeeping fraud, Satanic and Pornographic connections have no place in this article. If you wish to add these they need to be discussed on the talk page first. Basileias ( talk) 03:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Let's discuss this, point-by-point.
Fact: The Zondervan article (as it currently is, before any revisions by me) contains 12 references. I'll go through them point by point. Seven, listed below, are Zondervan, or its parent company, HarperCollins.
1. ^ Zondervan History
2. ^ James Ruark and Ted Engstrom, The House of Zondervan, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
3. ^ Zondervan - Maureen Girkins Appointed President and CEO of Zondervan
4. ^ Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will Be Done, New York: HarperCollins, 1995, p.690.^ Zondervan, Singspiration, Singcord, Milk & Honey
5. ^ Zondervan Press Release
10. ^ [1]
11. ^ Zondervan.com
The rest, following, are mostly press releases from Zondervan (or copies thereof), and together, state nothing more than the fact that Zondervan is in fact connected with Logos, Benson Music, etc.
6. ^ Zondervan, Singspiration, Singcord, Milk & Honey
7. ^ a b "Zondervan-Paragon Pact Carved Out New Benson Co.". CCM Magazine 3 (4): 32. October 1980. ISSN 1524-7848.
8. ^ Benson Music
9. ^ Logos.com
12. ^ Christianretailing.com[edit]
The third-party template ought to stay. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a well-documented fact, and there are few or no references to it on the article itself. This is because I am currently gathering them. One reference is already in place; several more will follow. In fact, Zondervan did experience several lawsuits during the buyout era because the poor bookkeeping masked the losses of tens of millions of dollars. Just because material is yet-to-be-sourced does not mean that it is incorrect. You're more than welcome to research it yourself and help me write the article.
The Satanism connection was discussed, and I can see from carefully reviewing the talk page that this may be problematic to include.
Before dismissing every source I referenced out of hand, please note that several of these sources were, in fact, major news outlets -- mostly in this section. I'd encourage you to check them out via the article history. Rick Warren also came under heavy fire for it.
Please respond and dispute any or all of these.
Also, just by-the-by: you also ought to note that editing (or reverting) during an active edit is generally considered to be bad form. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I can continue if you make me do so. Jsharpminor ( talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A number of controversies have surrounded Zondervan, many of which result simply from its parent companies' holdings.
In 1984, before its buyout by HarperCollins, irregularities in Zondervan's bookkeeping had led to losses in the millions of dollars, and sanctions by the SEC. [1] A disgruntled investor initiated a lawsuit, which was settled for $3.6 million dollars in 1989. [2]
Zondervan came under fire for being owned by HarperCollins, who also owns Avon Books, the publisher of Anton LaVey's ' The Satanic Bible'. [3] citation needed
News Corp. and its CEO, Rupert Murdoch, also own British Sky Broadcasting, and its network of both licensed and fully-owned pornographic channels, [4] as well as a large stake in DirecTV, a major purveyor of pornography. [5] [6] For this, both Zondervan and Rick Warren, Murdoch's pastor, have come under fire from some conservative Christian groups. [7]
Zondervan itself, however, publishes several anti-pornography works, [8] and responded to the accusation, saying, “While Zondervan has a financial reporting relationship with HarperCollins, the company operates autonomously on a day-to-day basis. In fact, our parent company strongly encourages Zondervan to stay true to our mission and core Christian values.” [9]
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
You might also wish to take note of "Arguments to avoid in edit wars":
You've used most of these. Jsharpminor ( talk) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's my 3O. Zondervan seem to have acknowledged by their denial that issue(s) exist due their non-christian parent company. This much is notable for the article. So are Zondervan's sourced financial actions. But the specific issues that Jsharpminor has gone to lengths to document (pornography, satanism) are common in any debate on spiritual values and not exclusive to christianity or Zondervan. Only if one can document that Zondervan has launched a focused and widely noted campaign on an issue is it notable. Publishing a couple of books by anti-pornography writers no more makes Zondervan a notable anti-pornography campaigner than News Corp is made a notable pornographist by virtue of having some investments in pornographic media. Certainly some "interesting" or contradictory connections can be argued but by WP:OR we cannot generate criticism to put into the article. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved this thread from my talk page.
Cuddlyable3 (
talk)
12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input on the
Zondervan Talk page. However please review the financial issue again. Jsharpminor writes "tens of millions." You can't find that term in either source he supplied, unless I missed it which I'm willing to take lumps for. While the mention of financial issues has sourcing, the comment "tens of millions" doesn't. Again, he's trying to generate criticism for the sake of just generating it. Why exaggerate the source?
Basileias (
talk)
12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I actually had an exact figure somewhere (it was something on the order of $56.7 million), but of course I won't attempt to add that unless I can find a good source for it. I'll research where exactly the "tens of millions" came from and be back with you. Jsharpminor ( talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article used as reference placing Milk and Honey (only) in the 1980s actually only proves that M&H was in operation by then.
Several Christian bands recorded on Milk and Honey label in the late 1970s. For example, the Renaissance released their album A Tradition (ZLP-3064S) on Milk and Honey in 1978. Selah (from Ohio) released "With Clouds" on Milk and Honey in 1975.
Paul Race ( talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Paul Race ( talk) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)