Talk:Atheist Bus Campaign
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
![]() | Atheism Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone want to go through the formal procedures necessary to use some of the Press images available from the official site? bpyoung (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Dawkins
Dawkins is described as a professor in the article, although he is beyond normal retiring age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- He's identified by "Professor" as an academic title, which does not expire. tomasz. 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- He gave his valedictory lecture from the Simonyi Chair at Oxford on 23 October. The title "Professor" is still accurate, as it was conferred not only by the Chair but by his fellowship at New College, which AFAIK he still holds. Even if he's retired from that too, he'd be an Emeritus at least.94.192.99.211 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a moot point because the manual of style says people should not be referred to by their academic titles in any case. Lfh (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- He gave his valedictory lecture from the Simonyi Chair at Oxford on 23 October. The title "Professor" is still accurate, as it was conferred not only by the Chair but by his fellowship at New College, which AFAIK he still holds. Even if he's retired from that too, he'd be an Emeritus at least.94.192.99.211 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Photos
We should have at least one photograph of an Atheist bus poster on the page to make things more interesting. BoffinbraiN (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've quickly pulled one in off Flickr, although it could use cropping or replacement. --McGeddon (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Title
- The current title is all capitalised, contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). I am about to move it to Atheist bus campaign. GDallimore (Talk) 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Contested, as this appears to be the title of a specific organization and campaign - not just any campaign. --DAJF (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even if "Atheist Bus" has obtained the status of proper noun, "campaign" definitely shouldn't be capitalised. GDallimore (Talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The website "ATHEISTCAMPAIGN.ORG", "Official Website of the Atheist Bus Campaign" indicates "Copyright 2009 Atheist Campaign", and "How did the Atheist Bus Campaign start?" and "The Atheist Bus Campaign launched on Tuesday October 21 2008 with..." on http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/faq/ 199.125.109.78 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Tone
Xasodfuih added a tone template, suggesting that the tone of the article is too biased as pro-atheist from the very first sentence. I think s/he refers to the use of "positive" and "rational" in the first paragraph. However, this is precisely how the campaign itself was originally designed, to counter a series of ads from Christian organisations such as JesusSaid.org, see this post for a discussion. I don't think there's anything particularly biased in the use of these two adjectives, much as the first paragraph of the Caritas article suggests that the goal of the organisation is "to work to build a better world" (emphasis mine), quoting from the official website of the organisation. It would be helpful if you could point out other non-factual sentences where the tone could be improved in a more neutral way.--DarTar (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care enough about this article to argue at length, but writing positive and rational without quotes or attribution implies that evangelicals are negative and irrational in comparison. Which may well be true for the evangelical campaign that this was designed to counter (didn't check), but the POV in that sentence is a bit too obvious for a Wikipedia article. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's just lacking "about atheism" in the lead; the main contrast is between the atheist message and the Christian message. "Positive and rational adverts on transport media in the UK, in response to evangelical Christian advertising" suggests that they could be positive and rational adverts about anything, and that being positive and rational is their only point. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems fine now. Good job everyone. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's just lacking "about atheism" in the lead; the main contrast is between the atheist message and the Christian message. "Positive and rational adverts on transport media in the UK, in response to evangelical Christian advertising" suggests that they could be positive and rational adverts about anything, and that being positive and rational is their only point. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)