Talk:The Enemies of Reason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Enemies of Reason article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-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.) The Enemies of Reason 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. B This article has been rated as B-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 → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes. Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Description of episode 1 2 Weird 3 Picture of Richard Dawkins 4 Why is this notable?

[edit] Description of episode 1

I added this description. A tag was added calling for its trimming. I will not comment on whether that call is appropriate. Something else concerns me. If one or more editors can find a tag calling for its trimming, it may be appropriate, but there is one problem with the one that was used: it talks about fiction and plots, and that doesn't work here! If anyone can add a tag that doesn't make that mistake, then let them add it. However, until then, no such tag can be put up. By all means people can cut bits out before such a tag is added - as long as it doesn't start an edit war regarding what is or is not vandalism. Come to think of it, it's unclear how to avoid that in any pruning process. Perhaps the template can be edited? 85.92.173.186 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

True, it was an incorrect tag. A correct one was added. Good job, BTW.--Svetovid 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the new tag. It has the advantage of not implying the work is fictional, as well as in fact implying it is nonfictional in the text on the edit page. It is a very rarely edited tag that still had, when you added it, the problem in article of not saying whether it refers to fiction or not, but used "plot", which is easily misinterpreted. I decided to edit the template too, just to be safe. 85.92.173.186 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the description of episode 1 need to be pared down or does the description of episode 2 need to be bulked up? Seeing the tag for episode 1, I tried to condense the description of episode 2 as much as possible while retaining the key points but this meant sacrificing details like a full list of who is interviewed. What is the way forward? Krogstadt 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird

Are we seeing the start of an edit war over whether or not to have dates as hyperlinks? Why do any of the pages about Wikipedia recommend it anyway? Has ANYONE ever found these hyperlinks helpful? ... Anyway, edit wars are apparently wrong, whatever I think of them, so theoretically what's happened so far had better not make one. We could have a discussion about this issue here I suppose, but I'll leave it to the two editors who actually care about it. 85.92.173.186 08:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Richard Dawkins

Am I the only one who thinks that picture of Dawkins is not very flattering? If others agree that it's a poor picture, could someone please replace it with another one? Or should I do it myself? ---- RenniePet (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How's that? I removed the blue cast. -- Smalljim (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. (Although he's still looking a bit old and wrinkled - but so am I. Sigh...) ---- RenniePet (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this notable?

Why is this notable? Are we to have articles about every 2-part documentary made on the planet? NBeale (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is from a well-known and popular personality. It is produced by a well-known and popular TV channel. It has been written or mentioned in mainstream media (The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Guardian Unlimited just from the article).--Svetovid (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost any Television Programme on a major channel will be mentioned in the newspapers. I don't see how this makes it worth a WikiPedia article. Rolf Harris has made far more TV programmes, and we don't have articles about all his. NBeale (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists (essay) and Wikipedia:Notability (guideline).--Svetovid (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

> Dawkins is not Moses and his outpourings are not Holy Writ

Unholy Writ?

Seriously, the first thing that comes to mind is, what's the problem? Like I said recently on another talk page, is the faith of modern Christians so fragile that an obscure Wikipedia article that probably nobody ever reads going to result in a mass exodus, or even a few renouncers? Especially since this particular Dawkins TV program is not even about Christians, it's about other kinds of superstition, some of them competitors to Christianity. You should be cheering him on when he derides spirituality churches and Indian gurus.

As for notability, I'll leave that up to the powers that be to argue about and decide. --RenniePet (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NBeale, stop being ridiculous. If this is not notable, how on earth do you defend the notability of The Dawkins Delusion? (etc, etc)? Snalwibma (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my concern is that any TV programme will get a few mentions in the press, but should we really have an article about every TV documentary ever made. Is there a WP Policy on this? NBeale (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTFILM specifically covers television documentaries. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it's genuinely critical coverage, rather than trivial mentions, it's fine. --McGeddon (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be about films not TV Documentaries, and anyway EoR doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria 1-5 listed in General Principles. NBeale (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just randomly chiming in here... Svetovid mentioned WP:OSE above and, if you're looking at television documentaries, think about Enterprise episodes and the like. Every episode of every Star Trek series has a page. I'm not meaning to say this is comprable to Trek, but the point that individual episodes have an WikiArticle. I have not investigated this article here, but only the comments on the talk page. If I understand that, though, a documentary that has received media attention, if properly referenced, would easily meet the Other Stuff Exists criteria/rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :-)