Talk:Douglas Adams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas Adams is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2006.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 20, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 12, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Douglas Adams is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

For more information and how you can help click Show →

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (31 August 2002 to 20 November 2005)
Archive 2 (next to start):

[edit] Apple References

Is it really necessary to devote so much space to Adams' interest in Apple computers? To mention other 'Apple Masters'? It reads almost like an advertisement.

Technology, once Adams embraced it, became a major part of his life. His biographers (both in print and on video) agree on this point. And he was an outspoken advocate for the Apple platform. Apple themselves noted his passing in 2001. I don't think it's any less an advertisement than biographies of US radio stars in the 1930s and 1940s that mention who their specific sponsors were, as that was no less a big deal and no less important in their lives - shows didn't get on the radio without a sponsor. I think it would take something away from the biography to change his outspokenness and advocacy about Apple Macintoshes to a much more generic outspokenness about computers in general, because it really WAS the specific platform he believed in and advocated, and which was very much a part of his life from their introduction in 1984 until his death in 2001. --JohnDBuell 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket pitch

Is it worth adding a note to the Doctor Who section about how the cricket pitch scene from the January 1, 1966 episode, where the TARDIS materialises in the middle of a test match with the commentators taking the entire thing completely in their stride, is so similar to the scene Adams later wrote for Life, the Universe and Everything? Angmering 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why there can't be a paragraph about in-jokes from the two appearing in each other's series. Just added one. --JohnDBuell 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Futher examples; and quotes, would me good, please. Andy Mabbett 12:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The examples of Hitchhiker's references showing up in Doctor Who are listed elsewhere, and that is linked. This article is getting long enough already. And the Cricket Pitch scene in the third novel is really the only notable reference I can think of in Hitchhiker's of Doctor Who (it's already noted that the first Dirk Gently novel borrows heavily from two Doctor Who stories that Adams worked on). --JohnDBuell 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So they are. Thank you. Mind you, some seem tenouous, in the extreme! Andy Mabbett 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's references in The Pirate Planet mostly come through the DVD's production note subtitles. The Ghost Light reference came from the BBC's online episode guide, and the rest can be seen or heard in their respective episodes. --JohnDBuell 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DNA wrote Dr Who episode

I got the DVDs of the series for X-mas, which contained lots of features including an interview with the great man himself. In the interview he states that he wrote the episodes, it's mentioned as he got the Dr Who job just as the H2G2 project was launching. Webhat 16:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I should have added the H2G2 TV project. Webhat 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to City of Death that has already been documented in this article and that one. And his getting the commissions for the radio series AND The Pirate Planet and his leaving the script editor's job on Doctor Who to spend more time working on H2G2 is also well documented. --JohnDBuell 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Pink Floyd influence?

I feel like it should be included that his official biography's title "Wish You Were Here" might be another reference to Pink Floyd's album/song under this same name. --Kamikazi 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That IS mentioned in the "Pink Floyd" section. How more explicit do you want it? --JohnDBuell 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have over-looked it. --Kamikazi 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HHGG vs. HHGTTG

I'm sure this was argued about for ages in a typically internet way, but wouldn't HHGTTG be more in keeping with Adams's sense of humor. The first time I'd ever seen the more sensible, thus less funny and less appropriate, HHGG abbreviation was upon reading this very page today. --Jbaber 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The series has been abbreviated in multiple ways at least a few years before the Web came into being. 'H2G2', for example, is mentioned in the original edition of Don't Panic by Neil Gaiman, from 1987.

(sorry, forgot to sign this. It's been an interesting last few hours fighting vandals --JohnDBuell)

How is HHGG "more sensible" than "HHGTTG"? That's just nonsense. HHGG is far sillier. --Bonalaw 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name & nature of santa barbara gym

Pilotguy said: "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism" - I respond: "no it is not!"

quote: "When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism"

I made my edit clear

I was at this gym as I was told it was a gay hangout (I forget the name). I am simply using wiki to publish this flag for further info on the name (and nature) of the gym. Maybe my gym info was / is wrong. At least the gym NAME would be more info to this wiki entry no?

But I look at the internet once every few months so I'll leave you editors to re-revert....

No where in any of the documentaries or published biographies of Adams is this mentioned. It's not appropriate to post claims like that and leave it to others to do your research work for you. It can not be backed up, and so out it goes from this article. --JohnDBuell 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

Is it just me, or does calling Douglas Adams a "cult figure" sound a bit POV? The use of "cult figure" is by nature rather vague and disputabe, and Adams, who probably has more readers than Michael Crighton (and is definitely not cult) is certaily very close to the edge of "cultism". freshgavin TALK 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Hitchhiker's series were a big part on the former BBC Cult site (for cult TV, and in the case of Hitchhiker's, radio), I'd say it should stay. --JohnDBuell 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that HHGG was cultish, I would that it isn't anymore, especially after the movie release. freshgavin TALK 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that in my personal experience, it was mainly the cult of existing fans that went to the movie and got the DVD, and that it really did NOT do overly excitingly well, and there isn't going to be a sequel, I'd say that would be an argument for it remaining a 'cult' sci-fi work. --JohnDBuell 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right. I think I'm just over-aware of the surge of fans in the last while because I always thought of HHGG as cultish and liked it that way : ). freshgavin TALK 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are cult aspects to some of Adams's fanbase, but that doesn't make him a "cult author." His inclusion on a BBC website doesn't make it so. His books were international bestsellers; a major studio picture was made out of one of them. Calling him a "cult author" is unnecessarily reductive, and nothing is really added by it. A separate section on his "cult status" would be more appropriate.

[edit] Harvey Mudd College

Mr. Adams was scheduled to give the commencement speech at Harvey Mudd College a few days after the date of his death, and on campus at the time (as a Pomona College student), there was a wide rumor at the time that the stress of preparing for this event contributed to this heart attack. It was always heresay to me, but I was told that several Southern California papers had mentioned this. Would anyone know if this is the case, and if so, if this factoid should be included on the section relating to his death? Smoove K 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can find anything in newspaper archives from May 2001 that say that, you could mention it. "Several newspapers at the time claimed blah blah blah" as long as references are cited. --JohnDBuell 06:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] s apostrophe s

Because there seems to be a minor edit war going on over apostrophes, I'm going to state here what I keep stating in the edit summaries, and other editors that have left "s's" I'm sure will back me. Adams's book - this is correct, current US and UK usage. A simple google search will verify this, but you have to be careful. There are many examples online of s' stated as being correct, but if you look at the works cited on those pages, they are from older style and usage guides. Several sites that agree with the current usage include:

I'd certainly be willing to confirm that this is the correct form. Though it may look a little odd, s's is standard and less ambiguous than just s'. The only time s' should be used is if there are a plural number of the person/place/thing in possession, and I think we can certainly agree that there is only one Douglas Adams (that this article is referring to, of note, etc.). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I inadvertantly learnt something new through this discussion - damn wikipedia! 8) Garglebutt / (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For proper nouns, the owner gets a say. Sometime in 1997 Douglas explained that his preference was Adams', and that a special exception would be made for the novelisation of Starship Titanic, to make it absolutely clear that he wasn't the author. Hence Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic by Terry Jones. I'll see if I can find the email he sent round TDV. SDS 04:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there also an exception to historical usage, e.g. Jesus' disciples, Socrates' ideas? Not relevant here I guess... Ojcit 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchhiker's "Films"

Since this article was posted as the Featured Article of the Day earlier this week, several editors have (mistakenly) corrected the text to indicate that there were two Hitchhiker's films. This is not the case. I think what's happening is that some people are confusing the TV series, which ran for six half-hour episodes, but has also been shown on television (primarily by PBS stations in the USA, but not exclusively) in "longer" versions, which are generally episodes 1-3 and 4-6 or 1-6 all run together with the credits taken out at the start and end of individual episodes – this GIVES the appearance of at least a made-for-tv movie, but it was not and is not. I can not stress this any more, there was, as of February 2006, only ONE Hollywood-produced, feature-length movie, released into theatres. Its article is at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film). --JohnDBuell 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT true ... the BBC released the complete series as a film ... you can get it as a complete dvd/vhs/etc ... --Dahveed323 10:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it IS true. VHS editions may have had opening and closing credits trimmed to make it look like a mini-movie or two, but even if you do a "View all" on the DVD, you still get opening and closing credits on each of the six episodes. It's a six episode TV series, and NOT a movie. --JohnDBuell 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recording

While it's not all that important, if this ever gets re-recorded (or if you just fancy editing the original file--various software, including audacity can be used to cut sections and add new bits) it's pronounced "Rees-Jones", not "Rice-Jones". Also, when Palin says his own name the 'a' is like in 'ace' not like in 'had', but I'll forgive that. And I think you misread the names of the fourth and fifth radio series (I expect they can be downloaded somewhere if you need assistance with that). Joe D (t) 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addenda: the f in Knopfler is silent (I think). It's posthumously, not posthumourously ;).

Noted! I was planning on doing a new recording after the the article hit the main page and got tons of edits, and I'll be sure to remember these so I get it right next time. Thanks! --light darkness ^(talk) 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Addenda: the f in Knopfler is silent (I think)". Actually, the 'p' is silent (or in fact, almost, it's a glottal stop of sorts). 82.176.194.151 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this vandalism?

From the part about the Starship Titanic: Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic (1997, written by Terry Jones (who insists he wrote the whole thing while in the nude)

Is this vandalism or does he really insist that?

I don't know if he still insists it, but it is/was a running joke about the authorship of the book. It's mentioned in the hardcover edition foreword, at least. --JohnDBuell 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There's photographic "evidence" on the back cover - with a carefully placed laptop. It should certainly get a mention in the article. --Tango 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The foreword and the photo appeared in the paperback edition too. --Bonalaw 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalist Activism vs. Animal Rights

Do we really need those two categories as separate entities or can we merge Animal Rights into the "Last Chance to See" paragraph of "Environmentalist Activism"? map 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it'll read better (and it probably will), feel free to make the changes. --JohnDBuell 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puplic response to DNA's death

I believe that the vast amount of messages left on a message board managed/owned by Douglas Adams should be taken note of. --FrostyBytes 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy vs Allegory

An allegory is a story meant to have some other meaning, it isn't normally used in an arguement, it stands on its own. The story DNA gave was used a point in an arguement, comparing the thing being discussed (religion) to something easier to understand (a puddle) - that's an analogy. --Tango 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Quoting the online Merriam Webster Dictionary, an allegory can be:

1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression

2 : a symbolic representation

Also, have you read the text in question? --JohnDBuell 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I think what determines if it's an alegory or an analogy is how it is used. An alegory isn't generally used as part of a greater arguement, an analogy is. The puddle story wasn't published as a separate story, it was published as part of an essay. The comparisons were also explained along with it, the comparisons an alegory makes are usually left to the read to work out for themselves. --Tango 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct, the puddle story was reused elsewhere, not just in the one speech quoted in Salmon of Doubt. And it was devised as a narrative device, comparable to a parable (which might apply) or a fable (which would not generally apply, as fables are generally meant to use anthropomorphized animals). --JohnDBuell 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me where else it was used? I've only seen it in SoD. That use of it is clearly an analogy - I've gone and found it, so I don't have to use my memory. DNA says "This is rather as if you imagine a puddle...", which I think shows that he's using it as an analogy, not an alegory. --Tango 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick search with the following terms in A9: 'Puddle story "Douglas Adams"' One hit brings up the "Lament for Douglas Adams" by Richard Dawkins, it's also quoted by the Sierra Club and the "Panda's Thumb" website. If you then use '"This is a very interesting world I find myself in." "Douglas Adams"' as a search term on Google, you find more precise examples of Adams's use and reuse of the allegory. --JohnDBuell 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the google hits (first page, at least) appear to be DNA using it anywhere else. Plenty of people have refered to his use of it in the speech (a transcript of which is in SoD), but it doesn't look like he's used it anywhere else. Can you give me a specific place he's used it? --Tango 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There was the talk at UC Santa Barbara (which is linked in the article). Give me a few minutes, I have to load RealPlayer on this PC. Also it's interesting that the article about the "Science of the Hitchhiker's Guide" book called it a metaphor, and Dawkins didn't really "give it a name" at all (an "illustration" at best), so nobody else seems to agree on the kind of tale it might be either. --JohnDBuell 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

An alegory is a type of metaphor, so that's kind of in support of your view. I can't find a transcript of the Santa Barbara speech, and I'm not going to try and find the reference in a 87 minute audio file, but I would imagine it's used in a similar way to how it's used in the speech in SoD. Do you think we should ask for a 3rd opinion? --Tango 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a video clip actually, and a fairly good one. The only other possibility would be to check all of the A9/Google references and tally up who uses what term (and in most cases, it's simply "quote" or "quotation", though one did describe it as a one-paragraph parable0. --JohnDBuell 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See Argumentum ad populum. What most people do isn't necessarily the best thing to do. --Tango 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I absolutely agree with that. I should have been more clear. Perhaps figure out how many people say "metaphor" and how many say "parable" etc. and disregard all of those that just say "quote" or "quotation." --JohnDBuell 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But's that's still deciding based on what other people do, rather than any logical reasoning. --Tango 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you're right, the only thing to do is see if anyone else chimes in here (though that doesn't necessarily make it right either...). --JohnDBuell 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully a third opinion here will give a reason, rather than just being a vote. I'll go and ask at Wikipedia:Third Opinion - I'm not sure how active that page is, but it's worth a try. --Tango 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Personally, I'd use analogy, but there's not much in it, and that's mainly personal preference. As stated above, allegories tend to be more stand-alone, wheras this is more of a throwaway remark. On the other hand, the two words are very nearly synonymous, and I think most people will know what you mean either way. --Scott Wilson 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go and change it. --Tango 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So after this long discussion of not necessarily using what other people say this gets settled with just one additional vote? I'm not sure I like that. I'm leaving it alone, but I have a feeling this may not be the end.... --JohnDBuell 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how third opinions work. Better to use someone that we know has thought about the options than random people off google. If you can find a better way to decide - a quote of DNA calling the story something specific, for example, this will have to do. --Tango 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea behind a third opinion is to settle small disputes quickly, with the minimum of fuss - insta-consensus, if you like. If you feel hard done by, though, you could make a request for comment in the hope of achieving a broader consensus. --Scott Wilson 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A second third opinion (as DNA might have put it). English is renowned for having the option of 100 words all meaning the same thing. That's why it's called a rich language and why no one can understand Shakespeare without a dictionary. However, an analogy is usually when one thing is compared with another for the purpose of making the argument clearer. An allegory does not contain comparison, because it works by two things becoming the same. In this way an analogy compares the difficulties of facing doubt with the difficulties of a someone climbing a mountain, because the process of the latter makes it easier to understand the processes of the former, but they are kept distinct. In an allegory our someone would be climbing a mountain which it would be made obvious was a metatphor for doubt, possibly because that would be the name of the mountain. An analogy keeps us as the outside observer of two situations; an allegory makes us subjectively experience one situation which is a synthesis of the two. Analogies are also shorter, and allegories are longer. If you want to know how much shorter or longer, a piece of string would probably be helpful here. So I agree with Scott Wilson. DNA's own decision on this would probably be fish. Tyrenius 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PS just to confuse the clarification, if you wanted an adverb, then I think probably to say he used it allegorically would be more common than to say he used it analogously, perhaps because it's much easier to pronounce the former than the latter. Tyrenius 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add a couple of things. One - I really do respect everyone's opinions and the time they've taken to think about this. This is without a doubt the most civil discussion on a debate over wording that I've seen on Wikipedia in nearly a year and a half of editing. Two - I don't want anyone to think that my earlier statement about this not being the end to be any sort of threat, such was not meant. I just had a feeling that other people might chime in here, or make some more changes to the text in the article, or one of us might be able to find some better references. Three - It did/does seem a bit silly to me to get a "insta-consensus" with just three individual opinions, but I hardly think that RfC would be appropriate; that always strikes me as a near last resort for something TRULY controversial, and I have a feeling we might get laughed off of the page! :) I'm sorry that I didn't have the time to review much material to hand today - about all I could have done was watch the RealVideo clip again, and I only had time to get through about the first ten minutes. I also seem to recall Dawkins remembering having asked Adams to tell the same story elsewhere, possibly in one of the memorial documentaries, but I don't remember which. If I get a chance to review some of these in the coming days, I'll add the appropriate notes here. Again, my thanks to everyone for taking this seriously, thinking the matter through, and taking time to post their opinions. --JohnDBuell 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment which upholds the highest wiki standards and shows great maturity and respect. Tyrenius 09:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adams's ashes

Boy there's a morbid subject line - I checked through the biographies by Gaiman (third edition), Simpson (US Edition) and Webb (also US Edition) the last time there were some changes made back and forth regarding the final resting place of Adams's ashes. Simpson's was the only book with such a statement. Right or wrong, it IS the only source that can be verified. If anyone has more accurate information, PROOF IS REQUIRED, simple as that. --JohnDBuell 03:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Does h2g2's official (edited) entry on Douglas count? (Last sentence of 'So Long' section - In May 2002 Douglas' ashes were interred in a private ceremony at Highgate Cemetery). SDS 01:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. h2g2 has very little connection to Adams these days. In the past, most of the staff were personal friends of his, but they've pretty much all left now, and those that haven't don't work directly on h2g2. Unless they cite a reliable source, they aren't much good. --Tango 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is some doubt about the date then why not edit the entry to not include a date? Then again on this issue I am more likely to believe SDS than MJ Simpson.

Same reason. If we say that the ashes were buried or scattered or whatever, we need a verifiable source to back up the claim. --JohnDBuell 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any real reason not to believe MJ Simpson? He's a widely accepted expert on all things Douglas Adams. What source do we have that is disagreeing? --Tango 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I let this sit for a while to see if anyone else would answer the first question. There's been some grumbling in fan circles about Simpson, and his own grumbling with Adams's estate, and his utter dislike of the film adaptation, which resulted in quite a fan backlash. See his page: http://www.planetmagrathea.com/index2.html As to the latter, it appears that the conflict is only between the two sources mentioned, h2g2 and Simpson. So we'd need a third source to verify which version is correct. --JohnDBuell 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You can have it both ways, you know. Something like, "According to Adams biographer MJ Simpson, the ashes were.... This claim is disputed by some writers at h2g2, however...." With appropriate citations, of course. This preserves WP:NPOV by reporting on what the available secondary sources have to say, without taking sides, and allowing the reader to check those sources and make their on decision regarding whom to believe. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was just a mistake on H2G2's part.I think that the chances of the ashes taking a whole year to be buried is quite absurd. I think we should trust Simpson on this one.Darkn00b 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

there are some vandalism-ish entries, i dont know about reverting, could someone do that please?

last "correct" entry seems to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Adams&oldid=64297805 (15:30, 17 July 2006 by JohnDBuell)

134.106.11.83 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grave marker

The article for Highgate Cemetery currently states of Adams "his grave is currently unmarked awaiting a decision about its proposed headstone in the shape of the number "42"" Funny, but I can't find any supporting site that isn't quoting Wikipedia. I figured someone here would know. - BT 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone attempted to insert that here, and I removed it for being unverifiable. If 3rd party proof can be found (through a London newspaper or something), then it could get re-added, with the appropriate reference. I'd suggest tagging that spot in the other article with a {{fact}} template. --JohnDBuell 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the response. - BT 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I think there should be a quotes section. He had a good one about writing. Something along the lines of writing is the act of arranging words skillfully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benbenbenben (talk • contribs) 12:58, August 10, 2006 (UTC)

Quotations generally go at Wikiquote. Adams has a page there, wikiquote:Douglas Adams, which is linked at the bottom of this article. I don't see the specific quote you mention, but if you have a citation for it you can add it to that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go to www.quotationspage.com and search for Douglas Adams you'll find tons of quotes.Darkn00b 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first picture

Wasn't there a nice headshot at the beginning of the article previously, where did it go? The ApacheCon picture is definitely not the best one I've seen in terms of conveying what DNA looked like. 82.181.61.48 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I never liked that photo myself, as he wasn't smiling. As I noted in the article's edit history, there has been some concern lately about publicity photos being reused within articles, and the very high likelihood of copyright violations that such publicity photos bring. I therefore changed the photograph to one that was available on Wikimedia Commons, and licensed for free reuse. --JohnDBuell 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that on other languages' Wikipedias, where fair use is NOT permitted, that photo is the ONLY one of Adams that appears. --JohnDBuell 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he isn't exactly smiling in that one either :-) I appreciate the fair use issue; perhaps this, then, means that there is a serious demand for a non-copyright-encumbered headshot of DNA, preferably smiling (I agree, he did look a bit gloomy in the earlier one)? -- 82.181.61.48 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The current photo sucks, as its from the side and there's too much background around Douglas Adams. The previous photo used was *much* better and more professional. — Wackymacs 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was more professional, although the look on his face was awful. But I'm going to side with those individuals that say too many promotional photos are being claimed as fair use. In fact there are probably too many fair use images (book covers, screenshots) in this article as it is. Under CC-BY-2.0 don't we have the right to recrop it and repost it as long as original credit is given? Or find another head shot that someone is willing to release under a CC license or GFDL. --JohnDBuell 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CC-BY-2.0 or however, there really ought to be a decent mug shot we can snag somewhere.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Gobonobo 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 42?

In "Monty Piton's flying circus" Adams appeared in episode 42.Was this intentional or not?

Python predates Hitchhiker's. It's a meaningless coincidence. --JohnDBuell 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you read H2G2 and still believe in meaningless coincidences? Ojcit 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial Service

Why in the world did a "radical atheist" have a memorial service in a church? TysK 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case?

So that his friends could grieve publicly?Billvoltage 11:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it our job to wonder? I thought we just needed to get the information down...Billvoltage 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the sake of those in his family who were Christians. Being an atheist he would have made it well known if he didn't want a church service, so it's very likely he would have been happy with the idea. Funerals and memorials are, after all, purely for the benefit of those who are still alive! --JamesTheNumberless 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that regardless of whether or not he's CHristian he still deserves the proper respect of a memorial and where he wants it. If it might insult others in his family or friends to not have it in a church than it's a good a idea to have one in a church anyway. I'm an atheist myself and I still would like a proper memorial in a church.Darkn00b 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This isnt so much memorial as it is his honor- but in the final section of the article I added a bit about what MIT students did to honor him but because I dont have an account I kept getting an error when I tried citing it in the notes section but here is the link(http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2001/douglas_adams/) if some one could add a 43rd note citing that part it would be thoroughly apppreciated. Thank you in advance 12.218.180.101 19:41, 18, January 2007 UTC

[edit] Physical Description

Shouldn't there be a physical description of Adams somwhere in the article? I can't find one anywhere.-Darkn00b 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What'd be the point? Describing a person is pretty POV for one. Wiki-newbie 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The point would be that people would know what Adams looked like. The only pics of him that I can find are of his face. I know that he has balck hair, but other than that... I don't even know what POV means. Perhaps if you could enlighten me...and at the same time being polite would help.Darkn00b 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The one thing that all of his biographers have pointed out was how tall Adams was, even as a youth. I do believe this is in the article. I would recommend finding a copy of any of the published biographies for their photographs, as they cannot be reproduced here. --JohnDBuell 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article section "Education and early works" describes Adams' height. Other physical attributes can be determined from the various photos in the article. Also, the acronym "POV" generally refers to "point of view." salamurai 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Various photos? YOu've gotta be kidding me. Oh and thanks for the acronym explanation.Darkn00b 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are FIVE photographs of Adams in this article alone (although one's of him in costume....) and a sixth in the Steve Meretzky article. --JohnDBuell 03:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

what he said. :) salamurai 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science humour

I just wrote the page Science humour. The final section is "Humour in science fiction". I mentioned Adams, the Babel Fish, and used the quote from the Babel Fish page. Could you please head over, and help develop the article? Cheers, samwaltz 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism/Religion

I feel that the section should be called Religion because:

Atheism is arguably a type of religion; i.e. a system of beliefs.
Even if it is not a religion, it is what took the place of religion in Adams' life. By putting religion in, we imply a 'or lack therof', which atheism would fall into if the above does not hold.
Finally, it makes more sense to use a generic term, rather than something highly specific. We wouldn't put a section titled 'Roman Catholicism' in the article on the Pope; we'd just call it 'religion'. --Scott Wilson 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -Releeshan 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Atheism is not a "system of beliefs", it is simply a lack of one particular belief, and the section already falls under the higher heading "Personal beliefs", which is already a generic term, so another is not needed. Under this logic the other subsections, "Environmental activism" and "Technology", would also need more general titles. Or we could simply acknowledge that Adams was an atheist, and environmental activist, and an enthusiast of technology, and title the subsections accordingly. --Nicknack009 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is (at least in Adams' case) belief that there is no god, rather than a lack of belief - uncertainty if you will - that a god exists. Your other examples, in my opinion, only serve to strengthen my argument; technology is a generic title; the corresponding title to 'atheism' would be something like 'enthusiasm about technology'; the title shouldn't state his position; that's what the body's for. --Scott Wilson 00:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care how the section is called. Either Atheism (because that what he was/became) or Religion (because that was what he rejected).

I do want to add that I disagree calling atheism a religion. A person who thinks that there is a probability that there may or may not be a God, but he just hasn't got the evidence to decide is not an atheist but an agnostic. Atheism is just the opposite of religion. At least that is how the terms are used in Dawkins book, which seems appropriate here. I think the term religion should be reserved for people who believe in supernatural phenomena. Calling any believe system a religion hollows out the term. Sander123 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The old "is atheism a religion" argument is always good pointless fun, but actually irrelevant here - the section talks as much about Adams' opinions on religion as it does about his atheism. --McGeddon 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see a big problem here, you could add to the beginning that he had strong views on religion to avoid implying that radical atheism is a religion, but personally this doesn't bother me as I think the title is relevant to the full text of the section. Oh, and what a nice article you guys have here! I enjoyed reading it very much, thanks! --Merzul 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/u/Talk%7EDouglas_Adams_f15e.html"