Talk:The Root of All Evil?

message: I know this is off-topic (sorry) but did anyone see or, more importantly, record Jonathan Miller's Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief? I saw it when it was on but unfortunately never taped it. I mention this because the article is rather lacking in information and could benefit from some input by somebody who has a copy of the film on video (unless you have a brilliant memory). The reason I post this here is that I'd imagine the target audience for Johnathan Miller's film is probably the same or a similar audience that The Root of All Evil was intended for - so there's a chance some of you might have it on tape. It's sad that the article is so lacklustre since it was an intelligent and well-presented piece. -Neural 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the DivXs somewhere.  I can write a bit about the programme, and/or send a copy (it'll take me a few weeks, I have a heap of more important stuff coming up) to anyone who wants to write it.  Joe D (t) 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to send me anything. This is really just an invite for anyone who has the info and the time/inclination to make it a much better article. The contrast between the Root of all Evil article and the one on the Miller documentary is pretty stark. Thanks. -Neural 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another atheism-related TV program

message: There are better ones out there, the same one was on the page about him but was replaced today.  And objections if I change this one? - Schrandit 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is an image from the programme, and shows Haggard as he appears in it. The posed publicity still is inappropriate, and I've changed it back. ...dave souza, talk 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted's Picture 

message: Should it be left on the Haggard page?  I feel so. - Schrandit 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclined to agree: it could be mentioned in a small footnote: I'll try out an approach which may be appropriate. ...dave souza, talk 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the edit you've made, Dave.  On the question of the picture, though, we've already got a shot of Dawkins & Haggard from the program.  If the role of the Haggard picture is to show Haggard, I think we should move back to the other picture, if only because it's such an unflattering picture of him.  Gabrielthursday 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think it's that unflattering, and the article's about describing the programme, not flattering its participants with information that's not on the TV show. That screenshot gives a pretty representative impression of the way he comes across. ... dave souza, talk 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps it's representative.  But if the POV standard of the show were the standard for the article, we'd be in major trouble.  The screen shot does make him look particularly goofy.  Gabrielthursday 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Gabriel, it's a screen shot taken mid-speach by someone who clearly wants to make this fellow look goophy.  That's the job of the article, and not a particularly difficult one.  I feel that it compromises the POV. - Schrandit 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haggard Scandal 

message: I have altered the reference to Phoenix Academy. It is not one of the UK Government's City Academies. If it were, it couldn't use ACE, as all City Academies are required by law to use the National Curriculum. Phoenix Academy is an independent Christian school, outside of the state education system, and is much smaller than the City Academies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pftaylor (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 November 2006
:Right enough, the confusion probably arose because Dawkins talks of City Acads just beforehand, and I've revised it to bring it closer to what he says. .. dave souza, talk 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoenix Academy

message: Dawkins put the finger on it. I think he put it very eligent what is the problem in the world. 
The teacher in a Christian school have a well defined thought about (it goes something like this): "If there are no god why will not humans run the streets raping, steeling etc"
I have even had that thought myself for some time ago so I understand what he mean. BUT now my thoughts go something like this: "If all people do bad to one another there are a greater chance of being killed so that is why everyone benefits doing good", God or no God aside.
There can be a God but it do not have to be a God in the world because geneflow is self sufficient. I am agnostic - "Because it is not possible to know anything what was before big bang there are no reason to speculate".
--Msitua 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can people please not air their views on religion or atheism on this talk page? This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --84.69.127.75 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The aching Toe" 

message: I added a video log that he posted on Youtube where he made some allegations about the interview. I know it doesn't look professional to cite Youtube, however I haven't found this anywhere else. I don't think that his criticism should be deleted either as it is significant given that he was interviewed in the documentary. Just so that you know, I do not support that guy, I think he is an absolute nutcase and his claims about the documentary are a pack of lies. However for the benefit of the article and to give a broader and more balanced view, I think it should stay. Anyway, if you disagree please add your comments here and don't take it down without adding a good reason. Olockers 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't watch the video (dailup connection... sigh) but I'm fine with linking to this in principle. As long as the video relates to the documentary and some readers will find it useful/interesting, it can stay. (I suggest others better endowed with modern technology please check the video). Mikker (...) 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly the video is entitled "Islam Forbids The Killing of Civilians" and most of the video concerns the basket case rambling on about nonsense, however I can assure you he does mention it. Indeed, the nut even says that Dawkins looks like a "limp-wristed bisexual." Charming to say the least. Believe me, watching that clip is a strain, at least for me anyway.Olockers 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youssef Al Khattab

message: There are links to video downloads of the program in this article, but are they legal? I'd like to watch but would rather not rip off Dawkins and Channel 4 in the process. -Kris Schnee 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are illegal but Dawkins etc. wouldn't mind if you're in America because they've been having trouble releasing it there. (I saw Dawkins speaking pretty positively of ppl in America downloading it 'illegally' in an interview somewhere). That said, you can always simply read the transcipts or watch the (free) clips available on Dawkins's foundation's website. Mikker (...) 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW the transcripts probably aren't legal either FWIW; although quotes from them probably are.WolfKeeper 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An link to a bittorent file would be better, since that is NOT illegal (torrents is not illegal, neither is most trackers that have them). I've added a mininova link. It's fully legal, since the link isn't where to download the file, but where to find other people who has the file. Ran4 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you got the idea that a bittorrent wouldn't be illegal. As the general rule, any and all copies howsoever made are covered by copyright. There are some legal loopholes in a very few countries, but nearly all countries if you download a copy using bittorrent, unless you have a specific license for that file, you've broken the law.WolfKeeper 18:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly have no idea on what bittorent is. Yes, downloading a copyrighted file is illegal in most countries, but linking to a bittorent page is not, since it doesn't include the copyrighted file. A bittorent page is nothing other than a search engine. I've added a google search link, there's no way you can say that it's illegal. Ran4 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's morally questionable, though. "Go see this legal page where you just happen to be able to download an illegal copy of this movie", is not something Wikipedia should endorse, for fear of opening a can of wurms. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Its not about bittorrent, it's a question of the law; I personally wouldn't like to bet either way; and in practice it's going to depend on what jurisdiction you're in. There's also the point that judges generally look at what the end-effect of something is, rather than the exact mechanism. If a file ends up copied and you deliberately helped somebody do that, you can end up in big trouble. But it's irrelevant anyway; the 'law' here that counts is the wikipedia's and the wikipedia runs to a fair degree on policy, so you will have to show me the policy that says its OK (so far as I know there is no such policy, but I'm willing to be enlightened).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality of video downloads

message: What do you all think of changing the title of the article from "The Root of All Evil?" to "The God Delusion (film)"?
And then of course starting the article with "The God Delusion (previously known as The Root of All Evil?) is a television documentary... blah blah blah."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the series in IMDB is 'The Root of all Evil?' not 'The God Delusion', so I have moved it back, so as to be consistent with the sources. The Wikipedia is not a place to Right Wrongs about the name or anything else.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The first part of the series is called 'The God Delusion', but I can find no reference to the whole series being so named.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title of the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Root of All Evil?. 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/20110101151039/http://www.secularism.org.uk/dawkins-season-on-more4.html to http://www.secularism.org.uk/dawkins-season-on-more4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120140813/http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/howard_jacobson/article340034.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/howard_jacobson/article340034.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070117053337/http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum.htm to http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004012957/http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/root-of-all-evil-the-uncut-interviews to http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/root-of-all-evil-the-uncut-interviews
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)