| Line 259: |
Line 259: |
| | ::::: I appreciate your humor about "fame". but perhaps it's worth adding that I don't agree with it. Jesus had very little fame, and the same could be about many other important entries in a good encyclopedia. Speculation about fame is even less encyclopedic (or meaningful).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 15 February 2009 (EST) | | ::::: I appreciate your humor about "fame". but perhaps it's worth adding that I don't agree with it. Jesus had very little fame, and the same could be about many other important entries in a good encyclopedia. Speculation about fame is even less encyclopedic (or meaningful).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 15 February 2009 (EST) |
| | :::::::: Regarding "fame", I guess we are talking about two different things: a person won't get into an encyclopaedia unless they had fame ''sometime'', whereas you seem to be talking about fame ''in their own lifetime''. I would dispute that for Jesus anyway, but the point is that if they didn't have fame ''at some time'', then they would not be in an encyclopaedia. Bryan clearly had fame, else he would not be in encyclopaedias, and his fame is therefore relevant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:22, 15 February 2009 (EST) | | :::::::: Regarding "fame", I guess we are talking about two different things: a person won't get into an encyclopaedia unless they had fame ''sometime'', whereas you seem to be talking about fame ''in their own lifetime''. I would dispute that for Jesus anyway, but the point is that if they didn't have fame ''at some time'', then they would not be in an encyclopaedia. Bryan clearly had fame, else he would not be in encyclopaedias, and his fame is therefore relevant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:22, 15 February 2009 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::: I respectfully disagree. I can't imagine any encyclopedia using "fame" of any sort as a criterion of inclusion. Perhaps 20% of a good encyclopedia consists of entries that lack "fame" by any definition. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::: As to Bryan, I bet less than 30% of Americans even knew who he was when the [[Scopes trial]] began in 1925. And even if that percentage were higher, I don't see what relevance the average person's perception is. It's anti-intellectualism to emphasize perceptions of fame, not to mention its highly speculative nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 15 February 2009 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | :::::::Bryan and Darrow were at opposite ends on religion. They were close on politics: both were very liberal supporters of big government. They both relentlessly attacked conservatives on economic issues. Bryan was politically powerful in 1925 and had a strong base in The South, which always voted for him by huge landslides.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST) | | :::::::Bryan and Darrow were at opposite ends on religion. They were close on politics: both were very liberal supporters of big government. They both relentlessly attacked conservatives on economic issues. Bryan was politically powerful in 1925 and had a strong base in The South, which always voted for him by huge landslides.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | :::::::: OK, Bryan did advocate soft money going back to 1896. I don't think anyone is claiming he (or Darrow) was a conservative. But just as atheists, Muslims, and Jewish people voted Democratic in high percentages in 2008, it would be misleading to characterize the three groups as political allies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:05, 15 February 2009 (EST) | | :::::::: OK, Bryan did advocate soft money going back to 1896. I don't think anyone is claiming he (or Darrow) was a conservative. But just as atheists, Muslims, and Jewish people voted Democratic in high percentages in 2008, it would be misleading to characterize the three groups as political allies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:05, 15 February 2009 (EST) |