User talk:CleverTitania/sandbox

At least one of the changes I'm making could be controversial, so I'm documenting my changes and the reasons behind them.

Criticism section
OK, originally I was content to leave the criticism note about Provenza, because there were several articles on the subject - though I'm realizing now most of them were all based on the perceived twitter war between Provenza and Davies. But now I'm not so comfortable with leaving any mention of Provenza's accusation. Here's my problem. These quotes are directly from The Green Room with Paul Provenza page.

"At the start of each episode, the camera would approach a stage door in an alley, where one of that series' guests appeared, only to warn the viewer off, saying that the event is for "comics only." In another nearby doorway, Provenza then motioned the viewer in, with the advice to "be cool," warning, "if you've ever been offended by anything, don't come in." The camera then followed Provenza into the building, via hallways and stairs to a final door, which would open onto the soundstage, where the evening's guests were already in conversation. After the show's halfway mark, if a guest uses music in their comedy act, such as Bo Burnham or Franklyn Ajaye, they may perform a comedic musical number. The song played during the opening and closing credits is a modified version of the song "Somebody Start a Fight or Something" by TISM (from their final album The White Albun)."

"...for all its digressions into obscenities, over- or under-worked material and more than occasional chest pounding, The Green Room With Paul Provenza manages to pack a considerable intellectual punch into a half hour."

"He gave the series premiere episode a "C+", citing the abrupt introduction of the viewer to the guests in mid-conversation, and the sometimes choppy editing which takes him "out of the moment."

"the anecdotes are priceless for those who truly love comedy, comics and stand up as an art form."

And here is the criticism line we have in this article, "There has been criticism that the show shares similarities with The Green Room with Paul Provenza on Showtime in both style and format"

Yet not a single sentence from The Green Room page, could be used to accurately describe either the style or format of As Yet Untitled. The opening credits sequence is completely different, and Alan doesn't come into the room with the guests already talking. The second quote clearly demonstrates The Green Room involved a lot of comedians using material in their conversations, where as As Yet Untitled is strictly informal conversation, with no theme for a group of stand-up comedians to riff on - and As Yet Untitled is an hour-long format show.

No one sets out to perform on As Yet Untitled - whether they are a musician or not. Michael Ball sang a few lines as part of a story, and Matthew Crosby was asked to recite a poem also because it was part of an anecdote - there are no "musical guests." And the theme song for As Yet untitled is a little catchy wordless score - it has no similarities to anything by TISM.

As Yet Untitled doesn't use a lot of choppy editing or anything to take you out of the moment. It keeps erratic camera movement to a minimum and focuses on the story being told, without a ton of cuts within conversations. And based on multiple reviews, The Green Room is definitely about "being a comic." As Yet Untitled has more personal anecdotes on it than stories about what it's like to do stand-up - particularly because the guests are not all comics. And no one is booking Germaine Greer to talk about the art of stand-up.

I don't know why there are no articles decrying Provenza's accusation - other than the fact that Davies nipped it in the bud quickly by reaching out to Provenza directly. But I just don't feel that we should be posting a criticism - sourced or not - which The Green Room's page itself debunks.

So, I am removing that line/reference and the Criticism section, since it's the only thing in the section. If someone disagrees with the action, please post your reasoning here.CleverTitania (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Saving this pending some input from the Editor Help section, on how best to put these examples separate from the Talk page where I want to instigate the conversation.
I'd like to make some changes to this article, but before I do, I'd like some consensus on what the intended purpose of the article is. For those who don't want to read why I'm posing this question, there's a tl;dr version of the question at the bottom.

"This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics."

"New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies founded on belief in the supernatural. Some critics of the movement characterise it pejoratively as 'militant atheism' or 'fundamentalist atheism'."

The thing is, there is a much bigger overlap not being mentioned here, that I think is why some people feel like this article is too broadly descriptive. Pretty much anyone who is remotely secular-minded - including people who are confirmed and devout theists - advocate for exposing religion when it influences government, education, politics or indoctrination of children, including criticizing religion when it claims a moral superiority that makes it an inherently positive influence on our society. That's not just a mentality that's held by New Atheists, atheists, anti-theists or secular humanists. It's a viewpoint that's held by pretty much anyone who isn't orthodox, fundamentalist or a militant theist. And has been, for centuries.

Wolf describes New Atheists as those who think that anyone who is agnostic or hedgy on religion needs to stand up and declare it absurd. He's talking about atheists who don't just believe that religion has been the cause of some horrific parts of human history, but who believe it is fundamentally a tool of evil oppression that must be destroyed. That is very specific to anti-theism. He called New Atheists those with a "war against faith." Those notions do not match the quotes above, from the Introduction. Using those descriptors for New Atheists is a bit like starting an article about Catholicism with descriptors like, "Catholics believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ." There are a lot of atheists who actually believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, so it's hardly a descriptor of Catholicism. And note that I wrote the last two sentences before I found the paragraph under "Perspective" that ends, "New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity." The last I checked, about 70% of the population didn't believe in Jesus' divinity. How is that an encyclopedic fact about New Atheism?

Wolf claimed, of New Atheists, "They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God." And yet, nothing that comes close to that description is actually in the Introduction. To my mind, this article is trying to describe a phase or segment of atheism that is based on certain assertions - primarily anti-theistic assertions. But it is then taking all the atheist/secular viewpoints of the notable "New Atheists" - like Dawkins or Aslan - and ascribing those views specifically to "New Atheism." And I think it's mostly doing that because Wolf's original article does it too, in what is very much an "original research" kind of way. It's not like only anti-theists will argue that we don't assume unicorns are real just because we can't disprove their existence. Dawkins may be trying to sell fence-sitters when he says stuff like that, but most atheist use the exact same argument to counter those who claim that atheism is a petulant rejection of a deity they "know" exists, but who they're angry with, in some sort of parent-child psychological fashion. That argument has no unique relationship with New Atheism.

And I feel like this article is expanding on that projection from Wolf. Because there have been many scientists and philosophers who have argued against the logical or scientific belief in god or religion, without it having anything to do with anti-theism. In point of fact, a study exploring whether or not faith-healing works is an integral part of making decisions on how our society handles sick children living in families where modern medicine is rejected - it has a significant sociological impact. Why are those studies listed on a New Atheism page when they have nothing specifically to do with atheism at all, much less a form of atheism that is engaged in a "war against faith?" If this article's intent is to explain what Wolf meant by New Atheism, and what distinguishes it from simple atheism or secularism, I don't feel like it's not doing that.

But others might not view the article that way. They may say it's an article meant to describe the people who Wolf labeled New Atheists, and then breakdown their actual views in more complexity, to demonstrate where their views follow and differ with more 'mainstream' atheist views. In both cases I think some changes need to be made, to distinguish either (or both) of those two goals. But the form of those changes might be quite different.

So the tl;dr is, what do people think the intent of this article should be:


 * 1) To describe the concept of New Atheism, as primarily defined by Wolf and those who have expanded on his original premise?
 * 2) To describe people that Wolf and others have described as New Atheists, and who may have since embraced the term, with more detail to their individual atheism than just what has been ascribed specifically to new Atheism? CleverTitania (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Both, or something else entirely.