Talk:The Bible Reloaded

Politics
I removed:

Their political views make up such a small part of their content. We shouldn't tar people for every minor transgression. 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it back. That's the most interesting part of the whole article. Also, being "very much in the camp of anti-feminism" while promoting TAA and shitting on Steve Chives is not a "minor transgression". Not that it's a transgression either; it's just their position, and it happens to reflect that they're dicks, so it's missional to cover. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The unsourced GamerGate thing should obviously go, though. I removed that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember them promoting a lot of GG memes back in the hayday, but that's proving hard to find again (really wish I saved that stuff). Anyway, the reason I consider it worth talking about is simply their guest list containing basically the worst of the worst, TAA, SoA, Armoured Skeptic and more. If they truly didn't have a position, we might see some more from the other side (oh let's say the guys from Cognitive Dissonance for fun) lately. 14:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As for why I put in that second line it symbolizes the sort of event horizon from them just being cheeky with the idea and flirting with it into being strictly on their side. I think its an important distinction. 22:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I just think that it's SUCH a minor example of being a cultural warrior that it should not be included. So what if they maybe sided with Gamergate on the tiniest subfacet of Gamergate-ism? It reduces our credibility (since it seems like an unnecessary attack, it makes this look like an attack piece) far more than it reduces TBR's. 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving the article forward
Assuming anyone wants to work more on this article, here's my two cents.

First of all, the article's way stub right now. It needs much more coverage, much more writing and — vitally — sources, sources, sources (for any new claims).

Secondly, we should cover their good stuff more, like their debunkings of creationism. Way missional.

Thirdly, we should also cover the bad stuff to wherever the sources will carry us, like GG involvement or anti-feminism. Way missional.

Like Gerard always says, don't tryhard flaming people over vague suspicions. Let them burn themselves based on what can be sourced; let their (possible) idiocy speak for itself.

Source claim, insert into article. Synthesize findings into text. Repeat. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an entire paragraph that sits in a comment because I don't want to include it until I get more details. Heresay is questioning the suit as they won't reveal their plan of attack, so since that's unanswered, I haven't said anything about it. 16:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

An Addition
Hello, I'm probably back from my inactivity because of this article. I might have just 1 addition: I've added Matt Dillahunty in the "With the lone exceptions" part because he is also one of the guests of TBR. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGOnCa643-I If there's any doubts in my addition, you're free to talk about it. Erebus Belmez Talk  08:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

gay lovers
Nothing about the fact that they are openly gay/bisexual? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 63.142.188.27 / talk
 * [[File:Wikipedian_protester.png]] 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that Jake or Hugo came out as bisexual during a Discord session. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 63.142.188.27 / talk
 * Won't work then. Discord fails reliability. 21:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Biphobia alert!

Hanna
I've been out of the loop on these folks for a while. I think its a new thing. 1. I think we should include a small writeup on the subject. 2. Is deadnaming a good idea here? 16:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)