Talk:Anthony Powell

I am kind of mixed about this article; why was it created and what purpose did it intend to show? - User $\pi$ 23:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I was mixed, too, about including it, but Powell was a very loud and brazen anti-science vlogger. I should expand the article more with his anti-evolution/anti-science rants once I can track down more of his videos. He also supported VenomFangX, attacked science-proponents on YouTube, and was otherwise a really vile character to the scientific community. I tried to make it as simple as possible on the M-S aspect and try to expand why he should be listed (anti-science). --Irrational Atheist 00:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I think we have to be careful about this--we don't want to look like Andy Schlafly crowing about kids wearing black all being school shooters, but it's a good chance to talk about how these random acts of violence which are coming to be more and more common have nothing to do with adherence to any particular belief/aesthetic but speak to a different sort of pathology, and to talk about how fanaticism, be it for Marilyn Manson or creationism, is rarely a good sign...TheoryOfPractice 00:05, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC)Do we have an article on VenomFangX and do we need one? ED is suppose to be the "encyclopaedia" of web culture, I don't know how on missions people would feel, especially as Rule 34 was deleted as just being about an internet meme.

I think ToP summarised why I am most uneasy about this article. If it was created before the tragedy, then okay he was a internet creationist nut job and we are updating to reflect the recent events, but to create it afterwards reflects some of the worst aspects of you know who. Just don't create Creationist Values with this as an example, that would be too far. - User $\pi$ 00:14, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I held off posting this immediately after the tragedy. His videos have been fairly low-key until just now, due to his multiple suspensions. If we are no longer to showcase anti-science due to deaths, then people like Falwell would be completely off limits. Anti-science bigotry like what Powell had should be shown for what it is: absolutely hatred for that which contradicts one's faith. I'm trying to find more of his videos that aren't the same two or three mirrored videos, but most people just replied to his videos rather than mirrored them. --Irrational Atheist 00:22, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

After watching some of his videos, I can see why this would be on mission. I think the article needs to be refocused to concentrate on his videos, views and opinions; with his death and the circumstances surrounding being placed near the bottom as an addendum. - User $\pi$ 00:33, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree; but at some point,either here or somewhere else, I would like to see something talking about obsession/fanaticism and mass youth violence, from the University of Montreal (anti-feminism) to Columbine (teen alienation) to this latest thing--I don't feel equipped to write it right now (full disclosure, I had a friend who died in one of these spree killings), but I think it's a discussion worth having. TheoryOfPractice 00:38, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I think it would be, but given the scope a doctoral thesis would be more appropriate than a wiki article. - User $\pi$ 00:40, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

There is rumor (and I find it highly improbable right now) that Powell made a video during or after his victim's death and before his own. Beyond what is in the article, I see no reason to expand any more on his death unless such a video was made and had any anti-science rants in it, and limit it more to those than any personal pleas. I hope more YouTube people upload their saved videos from Powell, since he had about two dozen before his first suspension. --Irrational Atheist 00:52, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't think we should be speculating on videos that may or may not exist, especially of that nature, I anyone has a video of him, RationalWiki does support the flv format used on YouTube so you can upload them here in the same way you do an image. - User $\pi$ 00:55, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Good to know. So what would be on-mission in regards to YouTube users? VenomFangX and Hovind's ministries are obvious anti-science sources, but what about users like HowTheWorldWorks, who is more of an Ayn Rand/Cato Institute regurgitator? Obviously only high-profile people deserve any attention, but what sciences and how popular should be the criteria? --Irrational Atheist 00:58, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

A lot of the anti-science brigade on YouTube are regurgitators, so we don't need to do them all. If they are high profile (lots of subscribers, videos regularly attract comments into the thousands and, please may this never happen, featured on the mainpage) or if they actaully have something original to say then we can have an article on them - mostly debunking their rubbish. We already have pages on the peanut butter argument and the banana fallacy, so far it has been the videos we have focussed on rather than the people. - User $\pi$ 01:04, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Jesus Christ--the temptation to liken the first few seconds of this to Conservative is almost overwhelming. This here article is the first I've heard of this story. Jesus, this guy was out there. TheoryOfPractice 00:10, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

An angry, angry man. - User $\pi$ 00:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

As far as article, looks like junk to me. Do we really need crap like this here? ħuman 02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should move all the youtube evangelists onto one page.--Thanatos 03:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

EC I think the use of new media to spread anti-science/pro-religion diatribes is pretty germane to this website's mission--but I just spent some time editing articles on three of these characters and would not be averse to seeing them blended into a single article on creationist vlogging...RaoulDuke 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with RD on this. The number of youtube idiots is, unfortunately, growing rapidly, but they don't all deserve an article. If we made a list they could all go there and only a few get their own article. Same as with our list of talk radio buffoons. Totnesmartin 07:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. If someone wants to look him up, I'm sure his name is immortalized somewhere else...OpalHonors 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping. I don't think there's a particularly good argument for deleting it - it chronicles a fairly serious and relevant event. And if RW can't keep track of certain YouTubers, who will? ^sshole 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very least

"There, Powell allegedly took a shotgun, murdered a 20-year-old fellow student named Asia McGowan, and then turned the gun on himself."

Needs a footnote. ħuman 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you. RaoulDuke 03:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that backwards. Let the person who wrote it footnote it. ħuman 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then call User:Irrationalatheist. He wrote it. RaoulDuke 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing deadlink

Sorry if I dunno the proper procedure to do this, just thought I should explain why I delete the link to one of anthony's own videos" its because the video is no longer there since the account was closed.

Okay. No problem. Тy^Talk. 19:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)