User:Hackwrench/Editorial stance

The dispute revolves around these points. 1. What belongs in an encyclopedia 2. What belongs in an encyclopedia entry about works of fiction. 3. The dividing line: When does something become significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. 4. Wikipedia Guidelines: Rules of thumb or hard and fast rules. 5. Commonly held views about the show. 6. Presentation of information. 7. What, in or out of an encyclopedia is significant.

8. Criteria of informed decision making.

Significant enough for inclusion
I maintain that something becomes significant enough to warrant inclusion the moment someone wants it in an Encyclopedia.

I believe that until it becomes hard to find expected information about a subject, considerable leeway should be given as to what content should be in an article. My rational for that is that people can find what they expect to find in a Google search; an encyclopedia article should offer more.

A general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia has to address multiple audiences. This means that articles addressing entertainment items don't just contain information that can be understood only by having watched the show. Furthermore, how the fans feel about the show should not be in the first section.

Viewpoints about entertainment are a combination of aesthetics and morals.

Most of the people I talk to who are fans of The Andy Griffith show hold |Christianity Today's and

Back when the show was made, very little of the population had the means to watch it, so those who would be prone to question it ethically had better things to do

Larry Mudd said that those who go to encyclopedias no doubt have their own worldview and is just looking for straightforward information about a particular subject.

For me, the search for "straightforward information" is the trigger factor for me to go to an encyclopedia, but finding out about others' worldview is a "prime directive" of mine, as I feel it is important to expand my own worldview.

The concept that entertainment in those days were somehow morally pure is a view that I understand to be widely held amongst fans of shows like The Andy Griffith Show, Bonanza, Brady Bunch, I Dream of Jeannie, and I Love Lucy.

On the Andy Griffith Show Talk page, Larry Mudd demonstrates that he doesn't know the difference between satire and parody. It is my understanding that these are pretty core curriculum concepts that someone without them would also be likely not to be in possession of the concepts necessary to make a properly informed decision as to what is or isn't appropriate.

The line that introduces the characters is one big run-on sentence. The fans may feel a connection with some or all of the characters, but that rarely happens immediately, and the more there is a connection, the less the show is light hearted entertainment.

When Col. Ironhorse died in the War of the Worlds (television) and Aeris died in FF VII I felt quite sad. Both of them died to save their friends.