Talk:Reason Rally/Archive 1

Article in General

This ENTIRE article is out of control. Mentioning rapists and prison proportions has nothing to do with this subject and it does nothing but trash the quality of this article. It is, I think, redundant to mention demographic data on atheists or "nones"; that's what the linked articles were for. Wikipedia should be free of these acidic sentiments; because of this, I am now seeking administrative protection to prevent future vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.149.85 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the stuff about stigmas against atheists, because it seems someone from the "True Reason" group is trying to minimize the numbers and discredit atheists in general and specifically trying to make this article about THEIR GROUP, rather than about the rally itself. It also appears that they were not even at the rally, because they don't seem to know who appeared by video and who was there live, and they insist that their "coalition" was there, but all I saw, in 6 hours of circling the event, was 5 or 6 men with large signs. I saw no one handing out water or tracts. And even if they were there, that is not what this article is supposed to be about. I'm not even sure it's appropriate for their link to be listed under "external links," since they have no reference that they were actually there, just an article written before the rally sayibng that they would be there. 216.2.60.98 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Pamela Koslyn

Minimize the numbers? What are you talking about? I'm an atheist myself and was at the Rally. You're adding random statistics that have nothing to do with the topic of this article. The beginning of a Wikipedia article is to summarize all the relevant sections in the article so that's why that information is there. Do you notice how the rest of the sentences (unlike the ones you add) have a footnote following them? "True Reason" is covered by all the major sources in the article that discuss Reason Rally so that's why the information is there. The Washington Post, Fox News, The Huffington Post, etc. all mention them so that's why Wikipedia does too. They're two separate comments on this page so far talking about how you keep on adding random studies and removing information from the article. Don't do that. Even if you don't appreciate the criticism from the press, it's documented so we have to include it in this encyclopedia. If you have stuff that's about THE RALLY then add it to the article but don't add stuff that's not about the rally here or delete stuff that other people have contributed to the article about THE RALLY. -ImproveDaArticle

Dear anonymous poster, I don't think you're an atheist, I think you're a "True Reasoner." And I don't think you were there, or you'd know that Pete Stark and Tim Harkin appeared by video, like Bill Maher did. And there are lots of articles that don't mention your religious group. But this isn't about listing as many articles as possible, this is about the rally, with qualitative not quantitative footnotes. The criticisms belong on your own True Reason Wiki page, or your own website. Your opposition to atheism leads you to labelling things that are opposition "criticisms." An appropriate criticism would be e.g., a disparate press invitation list, but this was an OPEN event, that anyone could attend. It is not a criticism or controversy that attendees had anti-religiouis signs - this was an atheist event, so of course the attendees had those signs, that's not controversial. There were no e.g., fights, crucifying Jesus, etc. at this event, and no actual controversy, just things you don't believe in. Please let this article be about the rally, not about your group and its beliefs.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.60.98 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what you think I do or don't believe in but I'm not the only one who's seeing a problem with your editing. When did I ever say that Bill Maher didn't appear by video? Even the automated bots are unwinding your edits. This is an encyclopedia - you can't just make up what you want and put it in the article. You have to have a footnote that backs your claims. If you want to add more information to the article, be my guest. I also never said there were any fights or crucifixions - are you mentally coherent right now? The reason the anti-religious signs are mentioned is because the news DID think they were controversial. When someone carries a sign that says "feed the Christians to the lions" - that's controversial, even if the person was probably just trying to joke around (which was probably the case - most atheists are ethical people). I think it's funny that you're telling me to let this article be about the rally when you're randomly adding prison stats to the article and removing the only picture we have of the event with Greta Christina speaking. Take a break and watch some Nyan Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZZ7oFKsKzY -ImproveDaArticle

True Reasoners, what you call controversies aren't. This event was not about your group, and any Wikipedia cite that has a lot more criticism and pseudo-controversies than the actual main text has simply been hijacked by those who oppose the idea itself. Your cites to your faith pubications are self-serving and don't pass the smell test, es[pecially those that were written before the rally even took place, those are obviously not good authority for hwat actually happened there. Your group is itself a footnote to this rally, if that, but you're trying to make it the main point. The 2nd sentence, really? How is True Reason so important to this rally that you consider it worthy of mention in the 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.60.98 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone from True Reason here. If you want to talk to them, you'll have to email them - maybe there's a link on their website or something. I tried to warn you by admonishing you to stop removing pictures and paragraphs but you didn't listen and an authority here saw it and now you're blocked. Hopefully you'll take care to try to edit right next time. -ImproveDaArticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImproveDaArticle (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversies

I know that it can be hard to maintain a balanced point of view on an article like this but in my opinion the two sections Criticisms and Controversies are excessive for this article. We do not have to include every source that wrote for or against the event, we merely need to provide an summary. I am sure that there is a separate page that discusses the disagreements between the religious and non-religious in detail.

There has also been a lot of changes made in quick succession which makes it hard for other editors to see everything that has changed. I would like to see everyone slow down and reach consensus before a rash of changes are made. Allecher (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you allecher, there have been a lot of changes in succession by a user with a potential SUA. I also agree that having criticism on a page is a good thing but when those sections are approaching the size of the main article maybe we need to rethink it. There are far more Religious groups that may have the medias ear so it does seem enviable that they would get a lot of media attention. Would really like to see some group pictures from the event. Sgerbic (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I got a message on my wall asking me to comment. As far as the footnotes, they are mainstream and reliable. The thing is most of the articles on Reason Rally unfortunately do criticize the event. That's why the Wikipedia article will also have a great deal of information on criticism. After all, being an outspoken atheist is still controversial today. Most of the news articles on the event also do report the controversial aspects of the event. So the same applies here - we need to at least mention what the other mainstream articles are reporting. We shouldn't try to hide what's being portrayed in the media just b/c we disagree with it. I just now did a search on Reason Rally and the latest article on the event I found was called "Letters: Mockery hurts understanding of religion" from USA Today. See what I mean? The event is mostly being portrayed negatively by everyone, even the more friendlier news sources. At the same time, like I said before, if anyone can find more information on events that happened in the rally or other articles that support it, we should add them in for sure. I also agree with adding group pics from the event. If you have some, put 'em up! -ImproveDaArticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImproveDaArticle (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with those who say that the "Controversy" section (& "Criticism" subsection) are unbalanced in favor of portraying the event as causing a notable stir which it really didn't. I'm not even sure it was "controversial" in any sense other than the fact that believers will always dispute with non-believers, and vice versa. If it were so controversial, why did the Washington Post report on it with a short article buried in the "Metro" section of their Sunday edition (& with no reportage of "criticisms") & why did the New York Times ignore it altogether? I attended part of the rally & from what I can tell, it went off pretty much as planned and expected without any notable or surprising events. It would probably be better to have no "Controversy" section, rather than one that merely lists quotes from speakers & placards which (someone) finds offensive and "controversal". "Criticism" there no doubt is & was, but that can be put -- in the form of quotes from notable commentators -- under the "Response" section. Also, criticism of the "new atheism" (such as that from Tom Gilpin from before the rally) or of non-believers in general should not be in this article; only criticism, support, etc, of this rally specifically. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the incident about the mocking and the lions was widely reported by many so that should stay. I'm inclined to say that the New Atheist sentence should stay in the criticism section since it was in reference to the Reason Rally. But if you really wanna remove the New Atheist sentence then go ahead. -ImproveDaArticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImproveDaArticle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a controversy AND A criticism section? Also wondering why there is so much coverage of the anti-rally people? There were 20K people there and under 100 counter-demonstrators, why are they getting so much attention? I understand that the mainstream media covered them, maybe to show "balance" but that does not mean it should be reflected so strongly on this page. Does someone have the Reason Rally set up with a Google Alert? Sgerbic (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see the entire controversy section summarized to 2-3 sentences. I do not think that the opinion/editorial pieces should carry the same weight as the factual sources Allecher (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section should keep the bit about the lions as well as the part about Dawkins. Other than that, go ahead. -ImproveDaArticle

I have attempted to summarize the criticisms while maintaining all of the sources so the reader can get more details. This seems to be an appropriate balance of the support and criticism to me. Allecher (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The page is looking a bit better now. Thank you Allecher. Still think that the True Reason group should be taken from the lede and only mentioned briefly in the body. Don't think there should be a mention of all the different Christian groups that make up True Reason, they aren't notable groups and made up such a tiny number of people at the event and handing out water and tracks isn't important enough for a mention.

Also the notable quotes area are VERY negative toward the speakers. Looks like someone is quote mining just to make a negative point for some reason. There are YouTube videos in abundance of the speakers where quotes can be pulled, and the video cited. I'm sure Dawkins and others had a lot more to say than what this editor left here. Other ideas people? Sgerbic (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

James Randi needs to be mentioned by name. I hope you guys agree, he is truly amazing.

James Randi needs to be mentioned by name. I hope you guys agree, he is truly amazing.68.63.185.0 (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)68.63.185.0 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.185.0 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your talk comments with 4 of these ~

Also I see that you have opened and edited the page several times but did not make changes. I'm sure you are just learning, try to make all the edits you are planning on, then hit "preview page" then write a reason for the edit, then click save. Wikipedia can be confusing at first, but in time you'll pick it right up. Sgerbic (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for being so forgiving, this is my first time editing on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.185.0 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are these separate articles?

Is there any particular reason why the 2016 Reason Rally has its own article? I suggest merging the two in place of the disambiguation page. The only rally that really needs its own entry is the 2012 Reason Rally. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I originally tagged this article as dated, but honestly there isn't much to say from a perspective of new to get a new article. I'll work on a merge tomorrow when I've got some time. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you start on that and I'll jump in at some point. The Reason Rally Coalition seems like it was created after '12. But the 2016 one seems to be a direct continuation of the first.

I favor merging 2016 and keeping this article mostly as is. I don't want to cut anything. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The user @Valerius Tygart: did the split and created Reason Rally (2016). Maybe they'll come in here and comment on this. I noticed it at the time and thought it was a bit dubious but I was willing to let them run with it a while. But as the articles now sit the 2016 one has very little in it and doesn't look to be evolving very rapidly. As a result I agree that they probably ought to be merged and just have two separate sections for the two events. --Krelnik (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged both articles and created discussion at the target page. Right here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No objection to merging the articles, if that is the consensus. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Reason Rally page should be the Reason Rally page, merge everything. No sense in having them be years otherwise we will be forced to have a page for each. There is a ton of coverage of the 2016 rally, I come across an citation every day and think, I hope someone is working on this cause I am working on something else. I suggest Lanyrd for collecting everything pertinent to the conferences so that we have a way to carefully select items to include, yet a reader would still be able to visit Lanyrd to get the rest that was collected. http://lanyrd.com/2016/reason-rally/ I rewrote The Amaz!ng Meeting page and this is what I'm envisioning for the RR. Highlights.Sgerbic (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any objections in either of the talk pages... The 2016 article brings nothing new to merit its own article. (comment in merge section for both talk pages)--Fjmustak (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)