Talk:The Root of All Evil?/Archive 1

message: It seems to me that the summary could be written in a more neutral manner. The wording and quoting leads me to believe it was partially written by an irritated creationist. // Nnp 17:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: Jacoplane's edit summary. I can see how that looked, but I was looking at an old version of the page history. I won't revert your link to Answers in Genesis again though, I read it and redecided. // Nnp 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem regarding the edit summary. I personally feel the link should be included. However, if there is a consensus among other editors that it should be removed I'll go with that. By the way, I'm an atheist myself, but I feel that it is a good thing to include the arguments of those who would criticise this documentary. Anyway, I'm glad we could resolve this amicably. jaco♫plane 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reviewed the article history and reread the summary. I have to admit I was absolutely wrong. (ouch) :) // Nnp 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, it takes a big man (or woman ;) to admit his/her mistakes :) jaco♫plane 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I think we need a discussion on the AiG link. My own view is that (like virtualy every article on the site) it is badly thought out and contains plenty of faulty reasoning. I would like Christian critique, but rational ones. Jefffire 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Upon reading the link, I found the article to be filled with ad hominem attacks and faulty reasoning. I intend to remove it unless there is an objection. --Eyrian 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really mind either way, but I don't think whether the linked article contains "faulty reasoning" in your views, really has anything to do with it. It's a link to some opinion, end of story. Nearly all the Dawkins-related articles have AiG links, to be consistent we should keep it. From my (complicated) viewpoint, the Madeleine Bunting article is far more embarrassing.—Laurence Boyce 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the notability of the AiG organisation was pretty much the only reason I felt it should be included in the article. The fact that their opinion might include "faulty reasoning" shouldn't really be relevant IMO. jaco♫plane 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The faulty reasoning goes with the territory, which I've tried to make clear in adding attribution to YEC after the link. You've persuaded me to read an AiG article which I generally avoid, and it has its amusing bits. "Haggard came across as a man of warmth and humility. His warm demeanour.." in nicely rose-tinted, as he has a way forcefully baring his teeth in a sort of snarl when making a point. His "don't be arrogant" line when saying "I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only [read] the books I know"  is richly ironic coming from someone telling people what they've to believe about the bible. Anyway, for info there's a reasonably full quote from him in Ted Haggard#Quotes, and a full transcript of that part of the prog in the talk. Back on topic, I don't mind the link, but it's frightening what some people will believe. .. dave souza, talk 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the credibility and logical structure of a source (which can, to an extent, be objectively analyzed) most certainly relates to whether it should be used. Is the Time Cube a legitimate external link for a Theory of everything? --Eyrian 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I decided not to revert it myself for lack of anything to replace it. AiG's ad hominems illustrate very well the tiresome methods Dawkins has to put up with. There's already some critique though, like the guardian piece. It can stay or go, it's certainly not to AiG's credit... // Nnp 19:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add my name to the list to take it off. I was browsing through and just thought it shouldn't be there simply because (as stated) AiG is not a credible source. To me, it's kinda like linking a rebuttal for alchemy on Einstein's page.--Kugamazog 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Although the interview with Harries is civilised, Dawkins, in his commentary, has little respect for him. He observes: "The moderate believers are fence-sitting. How do they decide which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are allegorical?" How indeed! Good point. 
How indeed, indeed. Very good point!
Laurence Boyce 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AiG link 

message: Just to show that if you've three editors you'll get three opinions, I've gone over the Colorado Springs section with reference to the transcript at Talk:Ted Haggard. Some points seemed to be straying from what was said and shown, and one point which to me is significant was missing, so I've tried to get closer to the programme. Hope that's not too much like bloat. The sentence "Steadily the exchanges become increasingly fractious." is perhaps superfluous, "tense" seemed to me a bit more accurate but I've no strong feelings on it. Re evolution, "an irked" is in my opinion accurate but could be dispensed with, however it's important to represent Haggard's claim accurately and note Dawkins's response. ..dave souza, talk 10:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: The article is fine in its detailed summary of the two episodes, I appreciate that kind of attention to detail (although it is maybe a bit heavy on phrases like "seems shocked") — but I think the track listing to the Google Video link is putting it quite a bit over the top. For example there are no list-like scene-by-scene analyses of any significant films or chapter-listings in articles on audio books on Wikipedia. That, plus the Google Video version is not even the absolute version of the programme, but merely the most easily accessible one. I admit that it might be rather useful, but Wikipedia collects knowledge, not usefulness.
For those reasons, I have removed the list for now. If you feel that it should be put back into the article, I would appreciate a discussion on the topic, rather than an uncommented revert. — Mütze 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the track listing which is useful as giving an idea of how long each bit lasts as well as presumably aiding those wanting to jump to a section. It's a bit of a lump which is best fitted down the page, as it was, and I wonder if it would be better to incorporate track times into the descriptive sections, perhaps as a bracketed time (28:45) at the start of each relevant paragraph. I've a home recording from the programmes (on DVD) so can check the approx times if that's desired. Having not looked at the article for a while, it's looking very well now. A few points strike me as over-hyped, "a big bust-up in the car park" and "Dawkins takes solace at a furtive meeting" for example, and I'll try to think of more neutral wording, but overall excellent. ..dave souza, talk 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I liked the track listing as well. jaco♫plane 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overbearing? 

message: Is anyone having any trouble with Google Video? It appears to have packed up on me. So I've re-inserted the mp4 download links. I think the quality is better too.—Laurence Boyce 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tried episode one and it seemed ok if a bit jerky, with the sound out of sync a bit. Maybe I'd too many tabs open and it was about time to restart my browser, but it didn't show any controls and wouldn't scroll down to reveal any, so eventually I closed the tab and Safari crashed. Whatever that portends. More to the point, you've been absolutely correct in reducing the amount of direct quotation from the programme, but in past versions there's a bit of an archive of transcriptions which might be useful if collected somewhere, perhaps Wikiquote? Since that already has a small number of select lines from this, there may be nowhere appropriate, but it just seemed like a possible useful resource. ...dave souza, talk 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dave. I just get a load of "errors on page." Must be a local problem. It was working fine until a couple of days ago. It would be great to have a complete transcript of the show, but I'm not going to compile one!—Laurence Boyce 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just thinking that several bits were transcribed here in past versions, and Talk:Ted Haggard has a complete transcript of that part put there by an anon. Think it would be in order to copy that to a new "The Root of All Evil? (transcript)" page, and add any other bits that are handy, as a start for what could eventually be a complete transcript if someone is enthusiastic enough? I've too much else to do, but it seems a shame to waste a resource that's there. ..dave souza, talk 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes we could do that. I've noticed that a number of people really want to nail Haggard. Understandable I suppose! I still can't understand why half these kooks agreed to participate in the first place.—Laurence Boyce 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone could place the youtube videos on the page. I'm translating it all to portuguese. Long live Dawkins! lol! Simoes 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, personally I think that the Google Video links PLUS tracklist are enough. ;) — Mütze 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great effort Simoes. Thank you very much.—Laurence Boyce 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Video

message: I have expanded the criticism section slightly to take in some of the reviews that were in the external links section which now raises the question: do we really need those external links? If we removed them then we would lose the AiG link which nobody would miss except me. But then there are those Dan Jones links as well. I didn't feel able to refer to them as it's just a blog and anyone can write a blog article. On the other hand the material is quite interesting. Does anyone know who Dan Jones is?
Perhaps duplication isn't so terrible.
Laurence Boyce 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I have made some minor changes to the text, which on the whole is very good. Feel free to revert my changes. One thing I was wondering about: in the text as I first found it Dawkins seems to "feel" a lot. Given that he's a scientist and a man of reason, wouldn't it be better to simply write "he says" or "claims" or "states" or something along those lines. "Feels" indicates a mysterious insight into his emotional life that strikes me as inappropriate. On the other hand of course, if he actually uses the phrase "I feel" in the relevant contexts referred to, it is a different matter and I apologize. I also changed a mention of testing "theories" to "hypotheses", as that seems to be the word he uses in that particular context. (In science, a theory is surely something much stronger and more encompassing than a hypothesis.)
The "feel" thing is of course a meme spreading throughout the world of writing, and fighting against it is perhaps a bit quixotic. But I can't help thinking of Colbert not reporting the news but rather "feeling the news at you." For now it should at least be avoided in an encyclopedia. Well, that's how I feel anyway.
And another thing:
"Dawkins interviews Haggard and begins by likening the worship experience to a Nuremberg Rally of which Goebbels might have been proud. Haggard takes this reasonably well..." To me he simply doesn't seem to understand the reference. As it stands, the text implies that he did indeed understand the reference but was gracious enough to let it pass?
--Selfishjeans 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins seems to feel a lot 

message: Thanks for showing up Dave. To be honest, I was really hoping you would chair a discussion, not muddy the waters a bit further! Never mind. I think I may bow out for now but, for what it's worth, here is my take on everything:
History: A stub was created in January 2006. Steinsky started the article proper in February. The video links turned up in May, enabling more people to participate effectively. In June, I announced I was going to "tidy up" the article. This eventually turned into a complete re-write, with the end result being about 90% my own work I suppose. In July, the article was translated into Portuguese by Simoes. Recently, an edit war broke out between me and Simpsons contributor, whom I call George, but who signs his edits as Miller. This led to a request for informal mediation on 4th August, at which point I stopped editing the article.
Accuracy: At the risk of stating the obvious, this is an article about a two part Channel 4 television documentary first broadcast in January. It could hardly be easier. We've got the video – the facts are easily ascertained. That is to say the facts about the documentary are easily ascertained, not the facts about the age of the earth, where the moon came from, evolution, what the Bible says, etc. Editorial asides regarding the latter are not as helpful as no doubt they are intended to be, and inaccurate reporting of the footage itself is inexplicable.
Neutrality: Given the subject matter, there is plenty of scope for POV arguments, though I feel this can all be avoided by simple expedient of stating the facts (about the documentary). However, we should not forget that, in a sense, the video itself was biased. Take Haggard for instance, who seems to attract a great deal of attention. By interleaving footage of the interview with footage of Haggard "performing," Dawkins manages to send him up good and proper. This is all fine and normal. It's a documentary – nobody ever expected Dawkins to showcase the positive benefits of religion. But from this starting point, I really feel we have an obligation not to exaggerate the bias or sensationalise the exchanges in any way.
Balance: The article is pretty long but, by resisting the temptation to include every last episode and exchange, I feel that the result made for fairly easy and entertaining reading. (Yes, a good encyclopedia should be entertaining too.) It therefore concerns me to see paragraphs and sections beginning to bloat, which merely diminishes the chances of the reader ever making it through to the end. Also it's very easy just to quote directly from the documentary, but this technique needs to be used sparingly. A key point here is that the article should read well both to those who have viewed the video, and to those who have not. Needless to say, when the quote marks are employed, the attribution must be 100% accurate.
Summary: These were my guiding principles when I wrote the article. I tended to underplay and understate things slightly, just letting the facts speak for themselves, keeping the narrative light and readable. The video is there for all to see, and from which everyone may draw their own conclusions, time and technology permitting. The fact that this talk page doesn't contain a blazing row between Dawkins supporters on the one hand and creationists/religionists on the other, suggests, to me at least, that I pitched it about right. But of course others may disagree! Take care everyone, and good luck with the article!
Laurence Boyce 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Laurence, sorry if you feel I'm muddying the waters: the best way forward seemed to be to analyse the differences in relation to the article, and make my suggestions in the form of revisions rather than posting ideas for discussion: any comment will certainly be welcome. Selfishjeans has already been making edits which seem pretty good to me, so there's hope that collaboratively we can all improve things. The points you make are well taken, and your effort in turning this from a series of quotes into a very useful summary of the article is much appreciated. Will try to tackle the other main points of contention shortly, and will aim to keep things concise but let me know if it goes astray. ..dave souza, talk 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries Dave, you've got to do what you think is best, and I appreciate your appreciation. I wish some of the others would turn up. I guess they're all on a beach – I wish I was! I can't help noticing how it's always the same sections that seem to attract all the attention. It's a bit like an Agatha Christie novel: guess who the murderer is – not me surely Inspector Kemp! Everyone seems to think that Haggard is the main culprit, with maybe Gluck and Hawkes as his shady accomplices. But that's just too obvious. It's never the obvious guy, is it? Laurence Boyce 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I must say it is most heartening to see such an eclectic group of contributors at work on the article, even including a self-confessed Nazi! Thank you for your comments Selfishjeans, they are much appreciated. Addhoc, thank you for your remark. Might I also suggest that your own tendentious editing is less than helpful? Laurence Boyce 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And the positive review that you removed, leaving all the negative ones in situ? Let me guess. An appreciation has no place in a "criticism" section, right? Laurence Boyce 12:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well guessed. Addhoc 12:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article

message: Some statistics:
:*9 January – 3 August : 333 edits @ 1.61 edits per day = this
:*5 August – 12 August : 127 edits @ 15.88 edits per day = this
:*Consequent gain in article quality = ???
I was particularly impressed with those 49 edits on 10 August. Keep it up lads!
Laurence Boyce 09:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lies, damned lies, and . . .

message: After reading this article, I am concerned that this treads close to a violation of copyright law.  Two of the considerations from theWikipedia:Fair use policy seem relevant:
*the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that the article describes the video in such detail seems to possibly compromise both of these concerns.  Perhaps the matter should be considered, since virtually the entire article is a paraphrase of the video.  Also, I checked the video link listed on this page, and saw no evidence that the site has permission to upload the video.  (If I am wrong, I apologize, but I did not see it.)  If the site does not have permission, then we should not be using it as a part of the public domain.  LawrenceTrevallion 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A deeply unhelpful and cynical part of me, when I noticed that you self-identify as a "Christian Pilgrim", wondered whether this had some bearing on your wider concerns about Wikipedia policy relating to an article about a documentary criticizing religion. Yes, I know: sometimes I'm too suspicious and pessimistic for my own good. I'm sorry and I regret ever thinking such a thing, for however brief a moment. As for myself, I stay away from articles about various pro-religious DVDs, in case I get the urge to use Wikipedia policies to have info about them removed for various reasons. Instead I try to contribute to articles that I don't have strong negative emotions about. But that's just me. -Neural 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I am aware giving a reasonably detailed synopsis of a television program is not a violation of copyright law, nor is providing a link to a video which is held elsewhere; i.e. outside of the Wikipedia site. But thank you for your concern Christian Pilgrim.Miller 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LawrenceTrevallion, as your term "paraphrase" indicates, this article puts the points in other words than the original. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others asks us to Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves.  Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. To the extent that this is a derived work, fair use applies. As the article is clearly for educational or critical purposes and is hardly likely to infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work, these criteria are in my opinion fully met and the proportion of the original work cited is a reasonable minimum for the purpose. dave souza, talk 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and Fair Use