Talk:Atheist Bus Campaign/Archives/2012

Untitled

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)

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Aervanath (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

• 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)
• My comment got lost for some reason, but I also disagree - convention clearly states proper nouns are capitalised, and that goes for "Campaign" too. Mdwh (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - stick with the capitals, it isn't just "a campaign on buses by atheists" but an entity calling itself the "Atheist Bus Campaign" as per its website. PamD (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Two suggestions

There are two things I think this article ought to discuss, but which it doesn't.

(1) It occurs to me that responses in the form of other buses have become so common that they warrant a section (working title "Responses" or "Parodies" or something) in the article. These include:

• I can't remember the exact details, but the Spanish adverts were immediately responded to with a Christian counterpart.
• More recently, three Christian groups, one of which is a political party, have teamed up to put up Christian bus adverts in London. (Said adverts aren't out yet, but they have been in the new a slot already, as has Hanne Stinson's opinions on how they differ from the atheist original.) They come in three kinds, one of which is a very close parody of the atheist advert, even down to the font colours!
• There's even a website where you can create any message you like for the side of a bus (of suitable length). It parodies the atheist adverts colour by colour, like the aforesaid Christian advert. Here's the link.

(2) A number of unsuccessful attempts have been made in various countries to put up other atheist bus ads, in addition to the ones that are mentioned in the article. (The cause of failure was advertising companies that were approach declining the opportunity to put up the adverts. This has sometimes resulted in verifiable quotations of the disappointed proponents.) I think these would be worth mentioning too. Now, there are a couple of things to add:

• Obviously, what I've written above really needs some citations! I know where to track them down if people here think it's worthwhile.
• That which is already in the article is certainly more valuable than these points, no question. Still, I don't think it would hurt to put them in.

Before I start looking up URLs or working on the exact phrases to use, or worrying about what quotations are notable, does anyone have views on this? 129.67.53.40 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(1)

• It might be worth mentioning the Spanish response advert.
• I added a mention to the three Christian ads. yesterday, last line of "Opposition to the adverts."

(2) I don't think it would be a good idea to put too many failed attempts at adverts in the article, it would make that section too long wrt the rest of the article. However a list of failed articles might be nice (it would probably get removed in the future though). But if any failures are particularly notable they should be included, e.g. in the Vatican city, Israel, Iran etc. Martin451 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your examples of what would be considered "notable" are cases where the advertisements would be banned by ... well, the sort of countries that we'd expect to ban them. I don't know if attempts have been made in those areas, but I do know that Australia was a site of failure. (Actually, that's the only one of which I can think.) Personally, I think that one is more notable, because it's not as predictable. I mean, Iran banning it wouldn't be as worthy of a headline, if you know what I mean. I think it said something like "You can be good without God", which apparently was a stretch too far for a seemingly secular country. I should really look up the details though. 129.67.53.40 (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: actually, while the slogan I mentioned was denied somewhere, the Australian one that was denied was "Atheism - celebrate reason!" I wonder where the other one was. 129.67.53.40 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bus adverts in other countries: Germany

hi. maybe it's worth mentioning, that an atheist-bus-capaign-motivated campaign also exists in Germany (buskampagne.de) which also raised the needed money within few days but got denied from all big cities in Germany. Some (like Berlin) now claim not to accept any religious promotion anymore. Even in Dortmund, where church was faster and a bus is already running with sth like "god exists -don't worry ..." they did not accept the buscampaign. Other buscompanies claim to fear violent religious protest. Some even quit allready agreed promotion (Essen). As a result the German "Buskampagne" now rents an own bus and goes on tour through most German bigger cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.138.255 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC) sorry for not signing - my account seems to be valid for all wiki projects except english wikipedia :-( --131.169.138.255 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article now has a section for campaigns in other countries, including Germany. Can we remove this topic now? BoffinbraiN (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussions are only removed from the talk page in exceptional circumstances (BLP violations for example). If they are on topic but no longer relevant, they may be archived to an appropriate page (usually /Archive 1 or whatever) but it's generally better to use a system based on age since last response to avoid disputes, there are several bots which can do this. However given how short this page is, it's unnecessary to archive IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Bus>#Merger proposal

FAC is notable only for this campaign, and they are no longer around. It would be best to just merge the info here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.76.111 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)