Has Bill Maher admitted problems with Religulous (2008)?

[BigT]

@Trinopus

This is not going to be fact-based, and Wikipedia isn’t where we should be arguing out opinions. WP should note the existence of the film, its release date, its length, and some of the things it actually says. WP should not go into which particular parts of the film are incorrect.

Then you misunderstand Wikipedia. It does in fact cover opinions from both sides about what is and isn’t correct. What you describe wouldn’t even be an encyclopedia entry. You cover why the film is notable.

And Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources. It prefers secondary sources. Primary sources require interpretation. And an encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It gathers together what the secondary sources say.

In fact, there is a tag that specifically says “This article relies too much on primary sources.”

[JohnClay]

The guy hasn’t replied to my message on the talk page for 2 days… hopefully this means I’ve won the argument…

Talk:Religulous

“And they don’t convey criticisms of the topic of this article (the Religulous film), but instead only argue about whether the “Christ myth theory” is valid or not.”

The magazine article directly refers to “Religulous” twice and Maher six times. It fully quotes the segment twice. It criticises the quotes so therefore it is criticising the film. In The Straight Dope column it includes the following: “the so-called documentary Religulous”, “Religulous (2008), an antireligious diatribe”, “people with an axe to grind - such as the writer and star of Religulous, Bill Maher”. So I think these sources definitely criticise the movie and star, specifically.

“all we have are the two non-RS [“reliable source”] websites… they are both just self-published websites”

Self-published websites include forum posts, blogs and personal websites. I don’t think Catholic Answers (catholic.com) and the Straight Dope column are “just” an example of this. The article is associated with a published magazine and magazines are a RS. The Straight Dope is comparable to Snopes.com because it is considered an authority on urban legends. Unlike Snopes it is also published in multiple newspapers. It is a source for DOZENS of Wikipedia articles.

[Trinopus]

The Straight Dope is comparable to Snopes.com because it is considered an authority on urban legends. Unlike Snopes it is also published in multiple newspapers. It is a source for DOZENS of Wikipedia articles.

But neither the snopes debate and discussion groups, nor the Straight Dope Message Boards are in this category. The formal snopes.com posts, and Cecil Adams’ columns, may be authorities, but not our Great Debates forum (and far less the Pit!)

[JohnClay]

@Trinopus

But neither the snopes debate and discussion groups, nor the Straight Dope Message Boards are in this category. The formal snopes.com posts, and Cecil Adams’ columns, may be authorities, but not our Great Debates forum (and far less the Pit!)

When I mentioned Snopes.com I only mean the authoritative urban legend sections. I am talking about Cecil’s column in particular this one. I didn’t mention the SDMB on the Wikipedia talk page.

[Trinopus]

@JohnClay

When I mentioned Snopes.com I only mean the authoritative urban legend sections. I am talking about Cecil’s column in particular this one. I didn’t mention the SDMB on the Wikipedia talk page.

Okay; my error, then. I thought you had tried to link to this very discussion thread.

Linking to an Uncle Cecil column is better…but still not really good. The Straight Dope column is not a solid factual source…and neither is snopes. They are both secondary sources, who sometimes (but not always) cite their primary sources. It’s still too close to citing someone else’s opinion. Snopes and The Straight Dope are, of course, quite dependable, but they aren’t the kind of material to be cited as “facts” in something even as sloppy as Wikipedia.

If you could find a link to what Bill Maher, himself, has actually posted, that would be pretty strong.

[JohnClay]

@Trinopus

Okay; my error, then. I thought you had tried to link to this very discussion thread.

Linking to an Uncle Cecil column is better…but still not really good. The Straight Dope column is not a solid factual source…and neither is snopes. They are both secondary sources, who sometimes (but not always) cite their primary sources. It’s still too close to citing someone else’s opinion.

I’m saying that they are opinions…

Talk:Religulous

“…I’m proposing that in addition to the 16 existing people quoted in the Reception section that it could also quote the opinions of two more sources that happened to have done a lot of research…” Though SD is referenced to in many Wikipedia articles that are implying they are facts.

Snopes and The Straight Dope are, of course, quite dependable, but they aren’t the kind of material to be cited as “facts” in something even as sloppy as Wikipedia.

I didn’t imply they were facts other than those sources stated those views. See post 67

If you could find a link to what Bill Maher, himself, has actually posted, that would be pretty strong.

I suspect it would be hard to find a quote of his saying that he was wrong in the Horus-Jesus segment.

[Trinopus]

@JohnClay

. . . I suspect it would be hard to find a quote of his saying that he was wrong in the Horus-Jesus segment.

So the answer to this thread’s original question is, “No?”

[JohnClay]

@Trinopus

So the answer to this thread’s original question is, “No?”

Yes it seems it is a no so many viewers would assume that part of the documentary is accurate.

[Trinopus]

Shrug. Anyone can make a documentary. Accuracy is totally optional. Look at the anti-vaccination documentaries.

Freedom of Expression includes the right to lie like hades.

[JohnClay]

@Trinopus

Shrug. Anyone can make a documentary. Accuracy is totally optional. Look at the anti-vaccination documentaries.

Freedom of Expression includes the right to lie like hades.

But normally Wikipedia articles about documentaries include mentions about parts that aren’t very factual. Though me and others keep on having the problem of having the Horus part removed from the article. Though it does say “…at least you’ve been informed…” and “Independent Investigative Group IIG Awards presented an award to Religulous recognizing the promotion of science and critical thinking in popular media”.