Jump to content

Talk:The Root of All Evil?/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV

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)

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)
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)

Eh? I'm not aware of there having been any significant creationist involvement with this article. I think the article is reasonably neutral. (I'm firmly in the Dawkins camp by the way.)—Laurence Boyce 17:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
Hah, it takes a big man (or woman ;) to admit his/her mistakes :) jaco♫plane 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


I have to say that I am now very much of the view that we should keep these AiG links, and also that it is unnecessary to protect them with so many caveats. These people are good honest creationists. As soon as we enter their site, we get a banner stating, "Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse," so we know what to expect. If this were creationism masquerading as something else, then I could hardly be more opposed to it. And having actually trawled through the review, I did at least find one thing to agree with:

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. [1]

How indeed, indeed. Very good point!

Laurence Boyce 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tidy up

I may in the not too distant future attempt to tidy this article up a bit. In particular it seems to be turning into a bit of a quote-fest (something I have been guilty of elsewhere). I feel this is especially unnecessary now that we have the google video links. So I just thought I'd say something before the article turns into a complete transcript!—Laurence Boyce 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted some sub-headings into the article. If they don't yet make perfect sense, it is because I am in the process of tidying-up/re-working the article, and hope to be there by the end of the week. Of course you may all chip in, discuss, etc., at any time.—Laurence Boyce 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I briefly suspended working on this article while I went off and had a private argument with George (Simpsons contributor). We didn't fully see eye to eye, but I think we can go forward from here, and I intend to resume woking on the article next week. However, may I please take another opportunity to signal my intentions. Having imposed some structure on the article, I am fully intending to rework every section of it. My principle concern is that much of the prose is unstructured and is stuffed with unremarkable quotations. Please, if you have any problems with what I am doing, say so sooner rather than later. In return, I promise to try to curb a tendency towards ironic tone – but I may not always succeed!—Laurence Boyce 19:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd more or less finished the bulk of the changes I intended to make, when a bunch of anonymous edits flew in which I've reverted. Come on guys (and girls). I explained what I was going to do; I kept you updated; nobody demurred. I take it you are not totally unhappy with the outcome?! Or are you?

I really don't want to monopolise the article, but please don't bloat it. We can't include every last episode and quotation – if you want that then you have to watch the video! If anything there's still far too much text, though at least it's now sub-sectioned.

  • Registered users – come on and talk about it
  • Anonymous users – get an account and come on and talk about it :-)
  • Old Chinese proverb – less is more, and more is less!

(I have no idea if that's an old Chinese proverb, but it ought to be.)

Laurence Boyce 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes Dave. I've gone back on "sermon" because I think that's a bit . . . something. Also I've closed up the paragraphs for reasons connected with the above. Hope that's not too cryptic!—Laurence Boyce 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right, but in his convoluted preachy style he never actually makes a charge, more argues that it's the problem, and please don't be arrogant. I've tried a more neutral description. ..dave souza, talk 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. "Lecture" might be the word we're looking for. I've got one of these Franklin gadgets that's great for generating alternatives.—Laurence Boyce 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish! I'm sorry to be so brutal. I feel I have tried to engage you and everyone else in a discussion above, but to no avail. I'm sorry that I have effectively rewritten the entire article from inside out, but somebody had to do it. At least give me the credit for having spent numerous hours on it. And the fact that someone thought it was worth translating into Portuguese suggests that the result wasn't a total disaster.

  • Suggestions / points for discussion:
    • Don't bloat – maximum three paragraphs per section, two for the smaller sections
    • Don't quote – unless it's vaguely notable and adds something to the narrative
    • Please try to cultivate a sense of cadence, balance, and structure
    • How would it read to someone who hasn't watched the video?
    • There is absolutely no point covering every single episode in comprehensive detail
    • Please no "it is worth noting..." statements and other explanatory stuff
    • The section title is "Colorado Springs" not "Haggard the bastard"
    • We are surely allowed just a trace of humour. Aren't we?

All comments welcome, including naturally criticism of my own efforts.

Laurence Boyce 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


George, I have reverted your latest edits again. I feel that they pay little respect to the existing structure of the article, and also display considerable bias. Could I plead with you not to make any further contributions before bringing your concerns to the talk page, and addressing some of the issues I have raised above?

If I may speak frankly, you appear to be under a fundamental misunderstanding. This is an article about a TV documentary, not a battleground in the war between the forces of good versus evil. You go completely overboard with Haggard. You stuff the prose with quotes which will not resonate with anyone who has not watched the video. You can't resist pointing out to the reader where Haggard, Gluck, and Hawkes are going wrong. "It is worth noting that the example Hawkes gave of the origin of the moon is still accepted." You cannot be serious!

Please come on and talk about it. I want a full discussion, not an edit war, and I urge everyone with an interest to participate. Please address my concerns, and I'll address yours. Steinsky and Dave Souza, please arbitrate where necessary. Please let's progress the article together.

Laurence Boyce 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again George; they're no better in my view. Please don't edit. Talk. Laurence Boyce 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Once again, I have reverted your recent edit George. As the changes were not extensive on this occasion, I will oblige you by telling you exactly what I think was wrong with them. I feel under absolutely no obligation to do this, as I have begged you on numerous occasions to join the discussion, something you refuse to do. But nevertheless I will endeavour go the extra mile.


  • Dawkins counters that the scientific method reveals the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, not 10,000 as is claimed by scripture.

The phrase in bold is your addition. I feel this is not acceptable for three reasons:

  1. This is one of your explanatory asides which have no place in the article, in my view. Nobody ever mentions a figure of 10,000 years for the age of the earth during the entire interview.
  2. The figure of 10,000 years is mentioned by Dawkins in his introduction to this section, and also in my introductory paragraph. This sets the context for the next paragraph, which makes your aside unnecessary.
  3. The figure of 10,000 years relates to the age of the universe, not to the age of the earth which, as I'm sure you know, was created on 23 October 4004 BC, making it about 6,000 years old. [2]


  • Haggard responds with a lecture about intellectual arrogance.

This is a line you have removed. I feel you were wrong to remove it for three reasons:

  1. You appear to think that this statement amounts to saying that Dawkins is arrogant. It does not. It says that Haggard thinks that Dawkins is arrogant, which is a very different thing. In fact it doesn't even say that because, as Dave Souza pointed out to me above, it was more of a sort of sermon than a direct accusation.
  2. The statement is entirely factual. It's what happened at that stage of the interview and, while I have maintained throughout that it is neither necessary nor desirable to include every line spoken, nevertheless I feel that this line is required to round off that particular round of exchanges.
  3. More generally, you appear to believe that the section as a whole is unfairly biased against Dawkins. I disagree. If anything, I feel that the section portrays Haggard in the worse light, which is of course what the video does as well.


  • Rabbi Gluck uses a phrase often used by creationists to debunk evolution: that evolution is merely a "theory" i.e. a hypothesis as opposed to an unshakable scientific fact. Dawkins, returning to the subject of the age of the Earth, asserts that an age of merely 10,000 years is "ridiculous".

I feel this is unsatisfactory for three reasons:

  1. There is no need to refer to him as "Rabbi" once he has already been introduced to the reader (minor point).
  2. Once again you are providing us with "helpful" context. That it's a phrase often employed by creationists. And you've told us what a theory is, in case we didn't know. We should simply be describing the action.
  3. That 10,000 year figure again. Watch the video. It's 5,000 years on this occasion.


Now George, I don't know if you have noticed something? It is that I have spent hours writing essays for your benefit on this talk page, while you haven't contributed a single word, preferring instead to use my talk page. If this is because I have offended you then I apologise most sincerely. It is a great pity, because I admire your enthusiasm and your passion. But I do not have the time to keep up this farce. Unless you join the discussion here, I may feel entitled to revert your edits without any further comment. Please stop and think, and please take care.

Laurence Boyce 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


It is clear that Rabbi Gluck did air his view that the Earth is 10,000 years old off camera because told him: “the age of the Earth, 10,000 years old, I’m sorry Rabbi but that is ridiculous”. The emboldening was an accident, I think it was supposed to be italic not bold; I like putting quotes in italic. My bad.

I heard the view that the Earth was created in 4004 BC on a program called Local Heroes which was presented by Adam Hart Davis. In this case he was talking about a collection of bones in a cave that were older than that which confused many people. None the less he said 10,000 years; he must have had a reason for it. If it is 6010 years old then that's even younger! For simplicity we’ll leave this part out.

As far as the interview with Haggard is concerned there are only two things I think is important: the evolution of the eye and the age of the Earth. I want to mention the fact that Haggard says that the scientific community does not believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old – this is an example of religious ignorance with respect to science.

I watched an episode of Horizon which was on a few weeks after these programs were broadcast on the subject of the teaching Intelligent Design. The one of the ladies who is against it says: “if you can lie to the American public about science, you can lie to them about anything”. If Haggard tells his “flock” that there is a “controversy” in the scientific community about evolution and the age of the Earth then this highlights the ladies point very well.

Perhaps say: Haggard claims that the scientific community doesn’t universally agree on the age of the Earth for example. If you listen to him talking it’s clear that’s what he’s implying. I can’t be bothered arguing any more though. So edit it as you see fit (since I’m not allowed to edit without asking permission first) Miller 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks for joining the discussion George. I will just respond to a couple of the things you have said and then suggest a way forward.

It is clear that Rabbi Gluck did air his view that the Earth is 10,000 years old off camera because [Dawkins] told him: "the age of the Earth, 10,000 years old, I’m sorry Rabbi but that is ridiculous".

No, he said 5,000 years. I've treble checked it.

I want to mention the fact that Haggard says that the scientific community does not believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

But Haggard did not say that. He said that the view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is only representative of "some of the views that are accepted in some portions of the scientific community." Now admittedly that is fairly tendentious; that the earth is extremely ancient is in fact the majority viewpoint. But the fact still remains that there are scientists who would agree with Haggard's world view, such as Kurt Wise for instance. [3]

Now what I suggest is that we try to get someone else to edit the article. I would very much like both Steinsky and Dave souza to come in, join the discussion and then, having taken everyone's views into account after a suitable period, edit the article accordingly. Whether they will be willing to do this is of course another matter entirely! But I will contact them now. Thanks again.

Laurence Boyce 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


But Haggard did not say that. He said that the view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is only representative of "some of the views that are accepted in some portions of the scientific community." Now admittedly that is fairly tendentious; that the earth is extremely ancient is in fact the majority viewpoint. But the fact still remains that there are scientists who would agree with Haggard's world view, such as Kurt Wise for instance. [3]

Wrong again I’m afraid. The Earth has been shown due to “extensive and detailed scientific evidence”, to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject, that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. This is the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. This can hardly be described as an “opinion” any more and there is no evidence (unless you consider “it sez it in da bible” as evidence) that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Miller 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


No I'm not wrong George because I was merely talking about what Haggard said in the interview. I feel there are still problems with your latest edits but I'm not going to enumerate them. I'm just going to lay down a marker here and pray that the rescue mission arrives as soon as possible! Take care.

Laurence Boyce 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

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)

Overbearing?

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)


Thanks Mütze, I compiled the track listings. You make an interesting point. I certainly find it irritating when Wikipedia tries to be useful – I'm thinking of things like direct links to Amazon from a book article, just in case you can't find it for yourself! So I do have some sympathy with what you say, but would nevertheless like to make a few points in favour:

  1. I feel the documentary is of special importance. It is possibly the most anti-religious material of a serious nature ever to be aired on UK television – and by a heavyweight presenter.
  2. Dawkins interviews a number of people, many of whom are significant in their own right. The track listings provide an important reference to them, as well as to Dawkins.
  3. I'm not aware that that it is possible to purchase the documentary anywhere on DVD. If it were, then the DVD would, no doubt, come with its own track listings. So we are in a sense providing something that cannot be had elsewhere.
  4. They are certainly very useful when trying to edit the article! But to that end I suppose we could just as well paste them into the talk page.

So I would vote to restore them on balance, but if they ended up at the top of this page, then that would be fine by me. Thanks again – and I would greatly appreciate other viewpoints.

Laurence Boyce 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
FWIW I liked the track listing as well. jaco♫plane 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I think I'm going to try, as an experiment, placing both the cast gallery and the track listings onto seperate sub-pages. I think the info is useful, but they do bloat the article a bit.—Laurence Boyce 12:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Video

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hmm, personally I think that the Google Video links PLUS tracklist are enough. ;) — Mütze 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just finished translating it! Simoes 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Criticism section

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)

I think I'm going to trim this down. I'll stick the Dan Jones links here for now.

Laurence Boyce 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins seems to feel a lot

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)Selfishjeans

State of the article

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)

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)
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)

Hi Larry! I just want to say that I was surprised to find such a good article on a subject about which I had only expected a stub. The changes I have made were only meant as minor (and perhaps misguided) improvements, and I greatly appreciate the work you have done! Please keep up the good work! If you feel that any of the changes I have made are incorrect or violate any policy, please change them. (If they have to do with content, it would perhaps be better to discuss them first.)But anyway, kudos to you Laurence! --Selfishjeans 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Selfishjeans

Yes, I found this edit very encouraging. We all could learn from this example. Especially line 50. [4] Addhoc 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are being sarcastic, in which case I wouldn't know what to say, since irony and sarcasm are totally alien concepts to me and all other non-english-speakers. But in case you are not: I don't have the freakiest idea what you're talking about.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you --Selfishjeans 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ok, eclectic group of contributors, yes. The issue was that either the specific phrase "cuts off a source of wonder" should be in quotation marks or should be rephrased. If you want to reintroduce the deleted sentences, could you reword them slightly... Addhoc 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
Well guessed. Addhoc 12:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Haggard interview

A transcript of the full interview was added to Talk:Ted Haggard, which I checked against a recording of the programme and found accurate. It ends with this:

Dawkins: Really. You obviously know nothing about the subject of evolution.
Haggard: Or maybe you haven't me the people I have. [laughs] But you see. You do understand. You do understand that this issue right here of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people, because I know so much more. And if you'd only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me. Well. Sir. There could be many things that you know well. There are other things that you don't know well. As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things. But please – in the process of it – don't be arrogant.

The summary that The meeting draws to a close with Haggard claiming that an overdependence on science forms “intellectual arrogance” makes a point that don't seem to me to be in the original, so I've tried rephrasing it as claiming that expressing knowledge of books and scientists conveys “intellectual arrogance”. Any improvements welcome. ..dave souza, talk 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving on to the Rabbi Gluck interview, my transcription of the theory and not law part follows:
Gluck: It's still called the theory of evolution.
Dawkins: Well it's called that, but that's in a very technical sense.
Gluck: But still it's called that, and it's not called the Law of evolution.
Dawkins: Well I will call it the fact of evolution and..
Gluck: Ah, ah, you're a fundamentalist believer in...
Dawkins: I'm not a fundamentalist believer....
Since he doesn't say As opposed to, say, the "law", in my opinion it's better to keep closer to his words, so I'll amend the paragraph accordingly. ..dave souza, talk 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and . . .

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)

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)

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)

Well, I could debate if anyone is not biased in some way or another, depending on who defines "bias" of course. That, however, is neither here nor there. I offered my legal concern, which I think, is justified. Yes, I do disagree with the concept that religion is some kind of deadly virus, but I think my legal concern is, at the least, substantiated. I admitted in my above comment that I could be wrong, and am quite willing to accept that. LawrenceTrevallion 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F/Archive_1&oldid=1048489694"