Talk:The Most Hated Family in America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page Blanked

I have no idea why this page was blanked by User Tim Long, but I undid the edit in the interest of keeping clear discussion on here. Anapologetos 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Eisegesis"

The sentence, "and expresses the opinion, based on its Biblical Eisegesis, that nearly every tragedy in the world is linked to homosexuality – specifically society's increasing tolerance and acceptance of" is definitely non-NPOV as yes, it might be eisegesis, but that is not our call as an encyclopedia to make--I have changed "eisegesis" to "interpretation" in accordance with NPOV rules. Anapologetos 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

While I'm not sure that Theroux' documentary deserves its own (meagre) chapter in the Westboro_Baptist_Church article, im against merging that chapter (Westboro_Baptist_Church#BBC_Two.2C_Louis_Theroux) with this article. The documentary is definitely noteworthy in the WBC article, although two lines, including a reference to this article would IMO suffice.--afromme 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The documentary is an entity on its own, and deserves its own article. It's just as much a part of Loius Theroux and BBC. Should we move all other shows and movies into the articles about their actors? Tragic romance 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support The vast majority of the article just talks about Phelps, who has his own article. If there can be more to this article about the film itself and not something that is repeated in the Phelps article, I will withdraw my support.Rebochan 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article doesn't say much, mostly repeating material already in the WBC article. The episode does not appear to be notable on its own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Against. Its own documentary. Tim Long 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

(As of 5/8/07,) this isn't an article about the documentary -- it's about Westboro Baptist Church and a couple of Louis Theroux's opinions. There's nothing at all about the documentary -- which is what the article is supposed to be about. Tragic romance 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WHY THE F**K DO THEY HATE SWEDEN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.179.222 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.150.129 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel Louis should have spent time researching what the bible really says before confronting these people, realistically they were never going to accept any reasoning that wasn't their own but the bible clearly argues their viewpoint and it would have been all the evidence he needed. EG, "When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ." - 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 NLT (Emphasis added by myself).AnnaNZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

ITV

Regarding [1], please provide a secondary source to dispute this, or do not remove sourced info with no discussion, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: For additional verification, added additional info to cite. added direct quote from source, into citation. The relevant quoted text is: "LOUIS THEROUX THE MOST HATED FAMILY IN AMERICA, 10pm, TV3". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Regarding [2], please do not make changes to sourced info and to cited sources to secondary sources based upon assumptions after failing to actually check the cited source itself. Per NewsBank, this cite location is given as London, England. I have added that into the citation as well. Please, do not change cited info based upon WP:NOR violations and suppositions and assumptions not backed up by cited sources. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check your facts. The source states it was broadcast on TV3, which is an Irish television channel, and not ITV (there is no TV3 in the UK). It is most likely that the article is in an Irish edition of the London-based paper given the number of Irish channels detailed and per the Irish edition section of the Daily Mail page ("The Irish version includes stories of Irish interest alongside content from the UK version"). mattbr 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-check the article. The changes I have made are more specific and currently seem to be appropriate as per both of our comments. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Per the already cited secondary source, the program did indeed air again in February 2010. I have added further info to the cite to help verify this add info to secondary source. add relevant portion of direct quote to citation. February 2010.. I have added direct quoted text pertaining to this information, the direct quote from the source is: "Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family In America 9PM, 3e **** ". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the UK as stated in the lead. Schedule information for BBC channels is available online (BBC Two, 10 February 2010), as is the broadcast history of the programme from summer 2007, and the source states it was broadcast on 3e, an Irish channel, not BBC Two. mattbr 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this seems to have since been resolved, to a hopefully amicable resolution. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Please specify where on Wikipedia it states to remove italics as is being done multiple times by Mattbr (talk · contribs) [3] [4]. Barring this being backed up somewhere by a policy or guideline, would rather keep the italics in these instances. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics are used for titles of longer pieces of work or for emphasis per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Television channels are not placed in italics as standard (as they do not fall into the categories where italics are used), and emphasis is not required in these cases as attention does not need to be drawn to them and the point of these sentences is clearly apparent. mattbr 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Where at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) does it say this, specifically? -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise as I have just made the same changes without reading this & realising it was contentious. I will see if I can find anything in the MoS, but I was under a pretty certain belief that TV channels have no need for italics.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry about it. It is fine. No objections from me. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't find anything specific in the MoS, other than the absence of TV channels from the list mentioned at WP:ITALICS. Anyway, good work with the article, it's a good read. I remember watching it when it was first broadcast and enjoyed seeing it mentioned at DYK!--BelovedFreak 11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality upgrade

Many thanks to NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), for the quality upgrade to B-class. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Emma Cooper - incorrect link

Hey

I'm not good with wikipedia but the link to producer Emma Cooper on the right hand side of the page where it has directors, writers, title card etc. the link to Emma Cooper links to a wikipedia page of a woman who died in 1920. I doubt this is the same Emma.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.111.212 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

De-linked it.  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar?

I just don't grammatically get the sentence "An organisation FreeRepublic.com formed demonstrations against pickets by the church." Could someone explain that sentence, or possibly copyedit it? My opinion is that it should be "An organisation, FreeRepublic.com, formed demonstrations against pickets by the church." HeyMid (contribs) 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not do it? I dont think there is an Issue with simple copyediting The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Repetitive?

Surely the intro is far too long? Paragraphs 2-4 (of the intro) basically have the same information that is contained in the section headed "Release and Ratings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.117.52 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the introduction it reads: "In the documentary, church members are shown protesting at funerals of U.S. soldiers, screaming at civilians, cursing, and repeatedly insulting everyone not part of the church." This is an inaccurate statement and it mischaracterizes them. Despite their hate-filled message, they do not curse and they are very rarely seen insulting anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iropan (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Led by Fred Phelps

Since Phelps dies earlier this year (2014), the second sentence needings changes from 'The organization is led by Fred Phelps' to 'The organization was led by Fred Phelps (who has since died)'. Dannman (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)