Overenthusiastic: My Sources

*Takes deep, preparatory breath...*

The source comes from National Public Radio. NPR is usually considered pretty credible as a media organization. The author of the article is named Bill Chappell, and he has a list of experience and qualifications with NPR, so he seems pretty credible. (The source also has the video embedded, so if anyone was concerned with his honesty or credibility, they could just fact-check by watching the video. Which I did, and he definitely reported the debate honestly.) The source came out on the date of the debate: February 4th, 2014. I can't find anything major that happened in the world around that time that would have had a specific impact on this controversy. This is the major source for my project, because I can watch exactly what happened in the exact way that it happened, without having to worry about accuracy and credibility. It feels good to be able to see it with my own eyes, and what better place to find information about the debate besides the debate?

The source comes from CNN's belief blog, which talks about major events from faith's perspective. This means most of the blog content is not solid fact, but that's the point. The author of the opinions piece is Bill Nye, who is definitely qualified to be talking about why Bill Nye did something. The piece was published on February 4th, 2014 - just hours before the debate took place. The piece likely got people excited about the debate that was to come, and that's how the date and time of the article is affected by what's going on in the world at the time. From this source I'll be using information about Bill Nye as a stakeholder in the event, and what he has to gain or lose from the debate.

This source also comes from CNN's belief blog as discussed above. The author of this opinions piece is Ken Ham, who again would be the right person to discuss Ken Ham's opinions. This piece was published on February 3rd, 2014 - the day before the debate and before Bill Nye's piece was published. But it probably served the similar function of getting people hyped about the debate. Just like with Nye's piece, I can use Ham's to gather information about Ham as a stakeholder source comes from the Big think, which in the controversy.

The source comes from the Huffington Post, a liberal news blog. This source may not be entirely unbiased, but this specific article presents a point of view that is of interest to me, it's acceptable. The author of the piece is David Freeman, the senior science editor for the Huffington Post as well as the host of a weekly science-related NPR radio show, so he's probably one of the best science journalists - or at least on the Huffington Post. The article was originally published on February 3rd, 2014 but was last edited on the 4th to include content form the debate. From this post I can gain insight on the scientific community as a stakeholder in this specific debate.

The sources comes from The Big Think, an internet forum that features interviews from various sources. The source itself is an interview of Bill Nye on why creationism shouldn't be exposed to children. Because Bill Nye is the speaker, he could be considered more of the author than the poster of the YouTube video. Because the source is meant to be another opinion, he is a perfectly credible source on the matter. The video was posted in August of 2012, a time when the evolution controversy didn't have much going on. This video is what drew Ken Ham's attention to Nye and resulted in the publicized debate that took place over a year later. So in a way, Nye's video sparked renewed interest in the topic. This gives me good insight both on why Ham challenged Nye to the debate, as well as why Nye accepted it, and it easily helps understand each of those two stakeholder's viewpoints just a little bit better.

This source comes from a blog belonging to the National Center for Science Education. These people wholeheartedly support Nye's viewpoint and according to the article, they even helped to prepare Nye for the debate. I'm not looking for hard fact and proof from this article; I'm looking for insight on the scientific community as a stakeholder in this debate, and I gain that from this article. So again, the author Josh Roesnau is perfectly credible in discussing his views as a member of the NCSE. The article was published on the same date as the debate after it had concluded. From this article, I realized how important it is to the NCSE for Nye to have won the debate. He spoke on behalf of their side, and a win would mean more credibility for groups like them.

This source comes from the Creation Museum's YouTube channel, but since it's a video on Ken Ham's beliefs with Ken Ham speaking, it's perfectly credible. The author would be Ken Ham; for credibility refer to previous sentence. The video was published as a response to Bill Nye's video about creationism, in August of 2012. Still not much was going on in that controversy at the time, besides Bill Nye's comments. This source helps me to get an insight on Ham's viewpoints and motivation in calling Nye to the debate.

I'm considering the entire site as a source. So it's a fairly good source for information about itself. (I'm sorry so many of my sources are so self-explanatory. I don't know if this is the case for everyone else or not.) There's no listed author or publication date. From this source I'm getting information about the setting of the debate.

This source comes from NBC. News settings are always questionable sources, but there's intriguing content to be gained from that one. The author is not listed, and I didn't see the date either but it was definitely sometime shortly after the debate. From this source I get an interesting tidbit; the author mentions his/her pleasure at the fact that the two individuals came together in such a positive way to have this discussion, and this gives insight into the audience's interest in the debate. The audience could be considered a stakeholder, so it definitely works.

I'm sorry It's Wikipedia. I tried clicking on the actual sources, and they were all on sites to which I would have to pay a hefty fee to access. So I have no choice here.
No author and no visible date posted. But from this source I gain a variety of good information, such as quotes and opinions of the participants, reactions, and essentially everything I could possibly want to know. I may not use this source in my final project, but if I can’t find another equal source, I just may.

Overenthusiastic