User talk:Feredir28/180 (movie)

New Title

I strongly encourage we change the name of this article to something like "180, the Movie." The video case does not say "180: Changing the Heart of a Nation" rather it is revealed several seconds into the film. I say lets use "180, the Movie." Any objections? Feredir28 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is Ray Comfort

We will likely be having people searching for this movie by title and not by Ray Comfort. Most people who watch this film will have no clue who he is or anything. The Heart Changer website and the 180 website does not tell the reader anything about Comfort. So when people read this review of the film, it should provide a section giving a very brief explanation of who Ray Comfort is. The reader is more than capable of looking through this wiki to learn more, but I think we should give a helping hand. is it possible that we can fit the {raycomfort} bracket on the side, but also fit in the side-by-side response? Also, should the section "Who is Ray Comfort?" be moved to just about the "180 Course" section or remain where it is? Feredir28 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing makes sense, but you need to read your paragraph and look at the focus. If you are asking "who is ray", then you want to first, answer that. "ray comfort is (what, a evangilst most famous for...), give a link to our main article, and then go more into what you have. Right now, you ask "who he is", but don't actually directly answer that. :-) GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, I will fix that. Feredir28 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how big this movie will be, but a google of just "180" makes this as one of the top hits. It's probably worth thinking about this article as an entry point. The quality is not good enough yet, but the topic might well be. That said, I'd probably pull out the side by side stuff on Ray, and just get right to your points, then address the movie. the side by side *in this case* doesn't really work, and is distracting from the real strength of what this article could be, which is a blast of the movie and ray. GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just want a quick vote regarding the side-by-side piece in the section "Who is Ray Comfort?", I just want to quickly explain why I included it. As I described above, I put a lot of work on this article because I wanted people who were unfortunate to receive a copy of the DVD, if they decided to get online to research "180" more, hopefully they would find this article and say "Really? This guy is nut? Wow." I kept in mind, that these same people would more likely visit the "Project Heart Changer" website since its included and recommended on the DVD, so people would likely go there first. And when they do go there, all they see about Ray Comfort is he is an author, alongside links to videos and books repeating his BS. So I wanted to be sure that no more people who never heard of Ray Comfort do not fall for his crap, so I thought it was extremely important to include Ray's bio PLUS a quick refutation of the videos and links to articles reviewing his books, especially the ones that bash science. That being said, I think that he side-by-side part should stay, but move it closer to the bottom of the article. Does anyone agree, or think it should stay where it is or be removed altogether? What say you? Feredir28 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty redundant to your other articles, and I do think you can keep the Ray stuff more focused and far more compelling. as it is now, it's got quite a measure of "too long, didn't read". If you really want the side-by-side, yeah, move it to the bottom. Keep the summary of Ray where it is, but just push the extra to the bottom. It's really important to remember that on-line, people's attention span is short. So small, well written and concise sections are far better than long detailed sections. (I'm not very good at writing concisely... thank god many others around here are!) But that's just me, see what others sayGodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 16:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort Merely Criticises People?

This might just be nit-picking, but one of the lines in the Ray Comfort section states that he is well known for 'criticising' those who disagrees with him. Is that a bad thing? I think it is perfectly valid to criticise people and opinions you disagree with, especially if you have rational arguments to support your criticisms. Rationalists criticise people all the time. I don't want to give the impression that openly proclaiming your viewpoint and providing criticisms of opposing viewpoints makes you 'intolerant'. Maybe a different term should be used, but I can't think which one. Perhaps we could say that he 'attacks' people with opposing views rather than 'criticising' them.^{— Unsigned, by: 115.64.150.224 / talk / contribs}

Except that I've never known Ray Comfort to attack people. When I think of the term "attack," I think of someone who is a complete asshole when they critique and criticise their opposition. I've not known Ray Comfort to go on a 3 hour tirade about how much so and so should be thrown in jail for believing what they believe. Thus, I think criticism is fine in that context and, if people want to know what Ray Comfort's criticisms usually consist of, they can look at our aticle on him and see that he's a complete crank in his criticisms. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 10:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)