Talk:Zondervan/Archives/2012

Who owns it?

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)

I agree. Who bought it and when? Who owns it now and when did they purchase it? Thanks!96.14.253.167 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (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)

Actually, in a conglomerate arrangement, such as you have with Murdoch, he has (and exerts) very-little-to-no input on the content published by the subsidiaries of the subsidiaries of NewsCorp. He is irrelevant to the operations of Zondervan, and only the parent company should be referenced.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch Does

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.

1ne (→Satanic connection - - maybe we should be more clear than "let go)

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)

Satanic Connection

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)

The so-called "Satanic connection" given to Zondervan comes from a small group of people who falsely accuse the New International Version of the Bible (published by Zondervan). They use Zondervan being owned, as they say, by a company supposedly "owned by Rupert Murdoch" as proof that the NIV is an evil "perversion" of the Bible. It is nothing more than a cheap guilt-by-association tactic that fails to honestly recognize that the NIV was published by Zondervan before it was sold to any other "secular" company. The "Satanic connection" added to Zondervan, as with the NIV, has no more relevance than an urban legend and only exists in the subjectivity of opinion. 96.14.253.167 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Rearrangement

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".

The statement is a little neutral to be classified as criticism. It also lacks any explanation, merely stating there has been some "controversy". If you want to move it to a Criticisms section more details need to be presented, such as specific information about the controversy. Also, it should be specified what the controversy is about, are they using abusive labour conditions? are they underpaying their workers? Jargon777 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It has no source. Moving to talk pending sourcing.

Recent developments There 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.

— Alan^✉ 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Storykeepers

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)

Pyromarketing

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)

No mention of Bible translations in article at all

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)

Zondervan doesn't own any translations of the Bible. What they own is the right to publish various translations of the Bible.jonathon (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See more and "lawsuits on god" ?

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

The lawsuit was filed against the two largest Christian publishers in the world. This is the first time that the controversy in how to translate the Bible has resulted in a lawsuit by a consumer.jonathon (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bookkeeping, Satanic, Pornographic connection

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)

Firstly, changes don't need to be discussed first, especially on articles that haven't been discussed for over two years. Secondly, the material is well documented from respected sources. Thirdly, these are not "wild conspiracy theories" -- they are well-documented facts, presented from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your sources and most are all self published. Basileias (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041023224715/http://www.theroughwoodsman.com/archives/000355.html

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/new-bible-versions-and-the-growing-pornographic-industry/

http://www.zondervan.com/Zondervan/Templates/SearchAdvanceTemplate.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fCultures%2fen-US%2fSearch%2fSearch.htm%3fSearchMode%3dAdvance%26QueryStringSite%3dZondervan&NRNODEGUID={5DA2FC58-FBF4-4E93-AC0E-9D8EA23940C4}&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&SearchValue=porn+OR+pornography&SearchContent=Products&SearchMode=Simple&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050904100217/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/816213025.html

All of these sources fail Third-party sources policy. Basileias (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Let's discuss this, point-by-point.

Article in need of third-party sources

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)

Loss of several million dollars

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.

Connection to Satanism

The Satanism connection was discussed, and I can see from carefully reviewing the talk page that this may be problematic to include.

Connection to pornography

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)

The third-party template staying is fine. Because the article currently isn't sourced well has nothing to do with what your adding. Controversial material needs to be cited to the strongest possible source. The sources your using clearly violate WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Yes, I dispute any or all of them. I think you'll find other editors will to. Reverting when someone took the issue to the talk page first is bad form! Basileias (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is for me to have to state source-by-source which sources I believe pass the third-party and verification tests with flying colors, I suppose that the burden of proof is, indeed, mine. So, here you have it:

• http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/816213025.html - Christian NewsWire. You can also see here the large number of other sources that I could have cited who copy this article, or some other incarnation thereof. The connection is documented.
• http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050904100217/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm - A reprint of an article that originally appeared in a Christian magazine.

Link doesn't even work. Basileias (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It finally loaded, and that article hardly makes any sense. Its not written by anyone notable. Basileias (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can continue if you make me do so. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Christiannewswire is not a reliable third party source, nor is it even a legit news outlet, flat out. Basileias (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you're making quite the assertion, exactly what relevant point are you trying to make? That there is no controversy, and that a large number of Christian magazines, minor news outlets, and blogs have covered a subject that is relevant to essentially no-one? Google it yourself, and you'll find that the question of Zondervan's connection to pornography is, in fact, notable. It has launched a few theories, some of them as ridiculous as saying that the NIV itself is flawed because of it -- despite the fact that the NIV was published a decade before this controversy ever happened. That's a good recap of the discussion that occurred earlier on this talk page: not that the issue is defunct, but that that particular argument is fundamentally flawed. That, I agree with. Beyond that, are you stating that the apparent controversial link to pornography and subsequent efforts by many Christian groups to even go so far as to boycott Zondervan is either nonexistent or non-notable? Please tell me if that is the case. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response doesn't address the reliability of your sources, of which there isn't any reliability. Activist editing, which is what your doing, does nothing to improve the article and in fact harms it. You haven't supplied one mature or serious source. A link to pornography and Zondervan doesn't make any sense from these sources. I would suggest a review of WP:REF, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY of which most all of your sources violate. Basileias (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith, rather than just throwing out terms and templates. I have provided several reliable sources: among them, the Chicago Tribune, The Business, and WorldNetDaily. The fact that CNN doesn't care about the Christianity or lack thereof of a Christian publishing house is hardly surprising; I have provided a dozen sources from others who do, including published Christian magazines. The controversy regarding Zondervan's 1984 bookkeeping irregularities is clear. It is a documented fact that the same company (NewsCorp) publishes both pornography and anti-pornographic literature. HarperCollins publishes both Bibles and The Satanic Bible. Nobody takes anti-smoking campaigns by the parent companies of cigarette manufacturers seriously; why should this be any different? I'm beginning to wonder why you're so dead-set against including any controversial material in the article. I have provided multiple reliable sources and documented the connection to each; all you have done is stated "You have not provided any reliable sources." You have further not responded directly to any valid arguments, conceded one point, or in any way admitted that I am doing anything productive at all. I, on the other hand, have acknowledged the validity of past discussion on this page, continue to assume that you will listen to reason, and concede that you may in fact have a point regarding the Satanism connection. Would you care to respond to the facts at hand? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I think your just playing games. Chicago Tribune, The Business, and WorldNetDaily!? These are the links you used as sources for your edits I reverted. Basileias (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20041023224715/http://www.theroughwoodsman.com/archives/000355.html

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/new-bible-versions-and-the-growing-pornographic-industry/

http://www.zondervan.com/Zondervan/Templates/SearchAdvanceTemplate.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fCultures%2fen-US%2fSearch%2fSearch.htm%3fSearchMode%3dAdvance%26QueryStringSite%3dZondervan&NRNODEGUID={5DA2FC58-FBF4-4E93-AC0E-9D8EA23940C4}&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&SearchValue=porn+OR+pornography&SearchContent=Products&SearchMode=Simple&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050904100217/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/816213025.html

Proposed section: Controversies

A number of controversies have surrounded Zondervan, many of which result simply from its parent companies' holdings.

Bookkeeping

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. A disgruntled investor initiated a lawsuit, which was settled for $3.6 million dollars in 1989.

Satanic connection

Zondervan came under fire for being owned by HarperCollins, who also owns Avon Books, the publisher of Anton LaVey's 'The Satanic Bible'.

Pornographic connection

News Corp. and its CEO, Rupert Murdoch, also own British Sky Broadcasting, and its network of both licensed and fully-owned pornographic channels, as well as a large stake in DirecTV, a major purveyor of pornography. For this, both Zondervan and Rick Warren, Murdoch's pastor, have come under fire from some conservative Christian groups.

Zondervan itself, however, publishes several anti-pornography works, 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.”

This doesn't pass muster for your agenda driven case. I'm not convinced of a Zondervan/Pornography connection, nor a Satanic connection. Basileias (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that I have an agenda. I don't. You might be assuming that I'm out to destroy Zondervan, Murdoch, or HarperCollins; none of the above is true. I simply became aware of some interesting information, and am attempting to insert it into a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure whether or not to believe either side of the argument; however, the argument does in fact exist, and it does make an interesting connection. You do not need to be convinced of a Zondervan/Pornography connection; it simply needs to be documented in third-party sources; which, it is.

You might also wish to take note of "Arguments to avoid in edit wars":

• "You have broken this rule by saying/doing that."
• "That is a violation of [this] policy.
• "If you add that to/remove this from this article, it is vandalism."
• "You are trying to assert ownership of this article."
• "This must be a sock puppet account."
• "You obviously have a problem with [subject]."

You've used most of these. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At his point, lets let other editors take a look at this, and when did I call you a sock puppet? Basileias (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't. But you did call me most of the rest. ;-) Jsharpminor (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When did I say "You are trying to assert ownership of this article?" Basileias (talk) 05:44, 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 would ask that other editors please review the 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. Basileias (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, I would mostly agree with you, though I would say that Zondervaan's "denial" is not really notable, since it seems to have been from an email quoted in the kingdombaptist.org site, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a verifiable source. But yes, other than financial/legal issues (if found to be verifiable), none of this belongs because it runs afoul of WP:NOR by trying to run up the corporate ladder and then back down it, trying to draw inferences through original research.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Zondervan

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)

It is indefensible to exaggerate what is reported in sources. The Funding Universe[1] says "By 1991 the company's estimated annual sales were $175 million, up from $106 million just four years earlier." Jsharpminor please quote exactly what source you have for "tens of millions" and do not put it in the article unless it is a source that can satisfy other editors such as Basileias. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 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)

I did find a $56 million dollar figure, but it wasn't in Zondervan's bookkeeping losses. It was a buyout offer from Christopher Moran, who also stipulated, among other things, that he would require the Zondervan bookstores to be open on Sundays and to distribute secular literature as well as Christian. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Milk and Honey

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)