Talk:Communion (book)

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Image copyright problem with Image:Communion book cover.jpg

The image Image:Communion book cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction?

A tag now says:

This article about a non-fiction book is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Clearly this book is fictional one, or does anybody think otherwise? 90.224.68.197 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times classified it as such (rising to #1 on the Non-Fiction Bestsellers), as did the book's publisher. To qualify it otherwise is to apply one's opinion to the article. Whether or not you agree with its classification is a completely different issue, since the fact remains that it has already been classified as Non-Fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aranarak (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this myself. My understanding is that Streiber himself has admitted that it was fiction; listeners of Coast to Coast USA or whatever it's called would know. He's on that program often, or was. Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioxinfreak (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

south park

Strieber claims communion was the object of ridicule by the southpark show's pilot episode, he claims the creators were very proud they were able to avoid legal action by streiber. This was discussed on Art Bell's Dark Matter 10/1/13 , I dont have a reference to the article streiber referenced where the south park creators claimed communion was being parodied in the pilot so I did not add the link, if anyone has it they should probably add a reference under pop culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.144.2 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communion (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821042337/http://www.beyondcommunion.com/communion/9910tsjacobs.html to http://www.beyondcommunion.com/communion/9910tsjacobs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]