This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
I think the article would be improved by tightening it up a bit. I certainly agree that Copyright_controversies got notable news at the time, but both issues fizzled out as nothing. I see the section as dead weight distracting from the far more important content in the article. I'd like to just dump the Copyright_controversies section. Does anyone concur? Any opposition? Alsee (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Waited 9 days, no objections. Edit done. Alsee (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Just because something is on the news for a short time doesn't give it enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed it was undue. If anything -- because there do seem to be several sources on the subject -- it might merit a brief one or two sentence summary elsewhere (in a "Production" section, for example). --— Rhododendritestalk | 23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
A number of sources don't make something more notable. If 100 outlets report that Justin Bieber bought a new hat, does it merit mention in his bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually. This is part of how Wikipedia maintains a NPOV. Of course that example isn't a good one because 100 reliable sources wouldn't report that he bought a new hat. Kind of like asking "would we report that bologna cures headaches just because all the major medical journals said it does?" If it's not true, then the journals wouldn't say it is and we wouldn't report it. If the medical journals say it is, then we do report it because we don't actually determine truth or importance at Wikipedia. If 100 outlets reported Bieber buying a new hat, then there's probably something notable about that event -- even if we can't figure it out, it's still "notable" for Wikipedia purposes. --— Rhododendritestalk | 15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Alsee: Yes, you're right about Wikiquote. I was thinking Wikisource. Don't use either much. I think you didn't notice the IP was correcting grammar from a spoken source, not a written source. Can you please provide either a link to the clip you watched or an hour:minute where the quote occurs in the video? That should be included in your citation. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yopienso:, it was a the first hit I got on a youtube search. I'm sure I could find it again, but do we really want to ref random youtube clip? The movie is the original source. Best would be to cite the number of minutes into the movie, if anyone has a copy. Alsee (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that you might have wanted to see it. Here's the link. It's 1min 35sec for Stein's voiceover, and 1min 48sec for Dawkins' "But that higher intelligence..." quote. I'd rather keep it sourced to the movie though. Youtube has the benefit that readers can more easily see it, but youtube is generally a gross source, and there's no telling if/when that link could 404. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)