Talk:George Will/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jimmy Carter's debate notebooks

I want to know the source of the assertion that George F. Will stole Jimmy Carter's debate notebooks.--216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

President Carter stated this in an interview on NPR's show Fresh air. The interview can be searched for and downloaded at; [1]. I don't have real player installed so I can't give you the exact interview (there are several with Carter). Also I will try find a reference link for the article page. Duk 18:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I miss heard this, President Carter did not say that Will was the actual thief, but he was at least an accessory. He knowingly used the stolen material. Duk 15:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added the more basic point that Will was helping Reagan prepare for the debate, then went on TV as a supposedly objective journalist to praise Reagan's performance. It would be good to add something about the knowing use of stolen material, but only if we can present undisputed facts and/or suitably attributed allegations. JamesMLane 08:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Carter/FreshAir reference notes that George Will was the middle man who received the stolen material from a White house employee and brought it to the Reagan campaign, in addition to coaching Regan for the debate (0:28:30 into the interview). I had and added the reference earlier but someone deleted it. President Carter interview, Fresh Air, Thursday - October 21, 2004 Duk 13:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"liberal media watchdog" changed

That Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting is a "liberal media watchdog" is a biased opinion and not a fact, it was stated as a fact. Their site does not uphold the previous claim and neither does the Wikipedia entry for the group. "some conservative critics of FAIR contend it is a liberal organization with a strictly anti-conservative bias." As with any article always use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view. Write as if the information is a non-judgmental news article.

Kaylus 12:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have changed this back to a "liberal media watchdog". NPOV should not be used as a shield against exposing an organizations political affiliations. If, as you said, an article should be written with a NPOV, then either the words "liberal" needs to be associated with the source FAIR or the item taken from FAIR should be removed as the source is widely considered to hold liberal leanings and is not considered neutral. Or maybe we could write "A media watchdog group whom many moderates and conservatives consider liberal, Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting...". Of course, that would be ridiculous.--MrFluff 06:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the 'Controversy' section

I’ve deleted the “Controversy” section entirely for two reasons. First, an encyclopedia article about an author should present what defines the man (or woman) and his/her ideas. The “controversies” in question might belong in a biography, but certainly are not among the key elements that should appear in an article as brief as this one. Second, much of the criticism leveled in the controversy section appears on its face biased. For instance, it appeared to criticize Mr. Will for being an unabashed admirer of Ronald Regan. Mr. Will, after all, writes opinion pieces, not news articles. The function of formulating and expressing opinions about public figures and their policies is the essence of his job – and contrary to current custom, critical opinions are no more objective, and no more professional, than expressions of admiration. In another instance, Mr. Will was criticized for being a partisan speech writer turned commentator. Certainly there is a time honored tradition of political partisans from both camps, from Peggy Noonan to – George Stephanopoulos, making the transition from political insider to commentator. Mr. Will wears his conservative sympathies openly in his writing and his commentaries, and does not hold himself out to be an “objective observer.” Later, Mr. Will was criticized for his actions in an incident involving Jimmy Carter. Yet Mr. Carter seems to have withdrawn his accusations. Finally, Mr. Will is criticized for not always fully revealing his personal relationship to a story. These points may be well taken, but they hardly seem to rise to the level of gravity that define the career in queston. They were not events that launched, characterized or ended a career – such as Dan Rather’s debacle with the Col. Killian / Air National Guard story, which effectively ended his career. In short, the article is a crisper, more accurate, professional portrayal of Mr. Will’s career without the “Controversy” section. MrLosGatos 08:11, 25 December 2005

Will's Politics

I'm too new here to be comfortable editing, but shouldn't the intro here at least identify Will as "conservative"? Also, some of the most interesting aspects of his writing over the last five or so years are 1) his growing disenchantment with the GOP's abandonment of small-government conservative principles (e.g. his attacks on No Child Left Behind), 2) his open ideological hostility to neoconservatism from a Reagan-era conservative (or perhaps paleo-conservative) perspective, 3) his related ambivalence to the Iraq war (that Counterpouch link is really dated by events), and 4) a contempt for anti-intellectual social-conservatism (e.g. Creationists) that is as deep as any Ivy League prof. Really, his frustration with the Bush abandonment of GOP principles is like a mirror to progressive frustration in the 90s with Clinton's abandonment of liberal principles. 171.159.64.10 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Bert

This is a tough question to answer. To start, read WP:NPOV and then WP:CITE --Duk 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's ever used that term to describe himself, but it's widely accepted as conventional wisdom on all sides that Will is a conservative. I think it's a point that's uncontroversial enough (and supported by the other information in the article, like his reverence for Reagan, his writing for the National Review, and his working on a Republican senator's staff) to warrant boldly adding it to the lead -- and I just did. Andrew Levine 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the term "conservative" in keeping with NPOV. It's true that Will is widely regarded as one, but the reader should be left to reach his own conclusion based on the facts presented in the article. This is consistent with Wikipedia convention. I couldn't find "liberal" used anywhere as a descriptive term when I searched several articles about those who would be widely regarded as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskii2001 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed a link to a piece of criticism. The off-site work was simply a scattershot polemic. Better to keep notations of criticism on-site with references. --216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not Wikipedia practice. We frequently link to "off-site" criticisms, especially of controversial figures. We don't need to link to every unfavorable piece, and this particular article isn't necessarily among the best that could be found, but we should keep the link unless and until it's replaced by something better. JamesMLane t c 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

degree?

Last I checked, you don't get a degree in "politics." Someone confirm whether or not that's political science?

If only you had access to the internet, you could google the answer rather than rely on others to do it for you. Oh, wait, you DO have access to the internet. Can I get you anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.196 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

why is it conservatives have critical items but liberals don't?

hummmmmm.....--69.37.39.147 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

hummmmmmm....because Wikipedia is biased and part of the liberal media. What nonsense - do you think there are no articles on liberals that have criticism? Get real. Matthew238 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion. Irrelevant and meant to provoke internet fight. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I think there is definite evidence of bias in this article. The controversy section is significantly larger than the biography.

Yeah, add up the Controversy secion, the Criticism of the Bush administration section, and the last four (worthless) paragraphs of the Career in journalism section, and it's close to 90% of the text. -- Mattbrundage 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a liberal and I would agree that there is that bias. I think what is there is good, the Controversy section is now well sourced, but it would be nice to have more reporting of what G. Will stood for, too. e.g. What did he do at the National Review? By the way, though, I don't think the "criticism of the Bush Admin" is in the same category as the "controversy" in terms of "bias". There's an interesting discussion elsewhere in this 'discussion' page about how Will is an interesting sort of conservative. (Come to think of it, it makes me realize that the neo-conservative paleo-conservative polar-opposition is a little dicey.) The modern Right is an alliance of business interests and fundamental christianity, but there is an older, blue blood, more moderate breed of Republicans of which WG is a part I think. Will is (yes?) opposed to the neo-cons. His Bush bashing is a interesting aspect to the man, and it's not bias to bring it up. In fact, I came here today because of an article he wrote basically damning the Republicans' behaviour over the Foley controversy. He basically says that the Democrats deserve to win, given the mess the Republicans have made of it. http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/97426.asp Pigkeeper 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is now no controversy section - there is no criticism of Will at all, only a section of Will's criticisms of the Bush administration, which is hardly criticism of Will. - Matthew238 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is another "just because he's conservative" controversy section. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the controversy section, it's just that there's little else in his page. He's been one of the most influencial columbists of the past 25 years, it should at least outline his political positions.(JohnM.Kelly (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

(------------------ Overall I've been impressed with Wikipedia's ability to keep articles like this balanced, but I too was shocked to see how much the Controversy section (which is apparently back) outweighed all his achievements and general political philosophy. Within the controversy section itself, there is reference to the recent disagreement over global warming and ice caps. I don't see how this is controversial. There are many viewpoints on global warming and countless ways to interpret data in support of a particular viewpoint (a frightening thought when most people now believe the science is 'settled'). Mr. Will was using valid published data to support an opinion. The fact that the institute reporting that data chose to retract it because it does not support global warming theories does not make it any less factual.

Also it's interesting to note that his criticism of the Bush administration is apparently not controversial. Might that be because the author believes that any criticism of Bush is not controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightandverity (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is a borderline hit job. Most of the material under 'controversy' is far from notable. For example, who cares what FAIR said in 1996, when Will (a commentator) commented on the election while his wife worked for the Dole Campaign? Is that illegal or unethical? This just isn't an important criticism. And that business about Chinese companies drilling off of Florida...a columnist makes a minor error of fact! And corrects it in his column two weeks later! How is this a scandal? What evidence is there that many people have considered it one? Wikipedia should not have articles like this about living persons. If anyone wonders about the proper place of criticism in biographical articles, I would point them to the article on Michael Moore!

I'm going to check back in a week, and if nobody wants to defend this content here in the talk page, I'll be getting rid of most of it.0nullbinary0 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the "Controversies" section noteworthy enough to Will's biography to be worth saving, and would favor removing it entirely. Likewise, the sections on his criticism of Bush and the McCain-Palin ticket, which could only be considered noteworthy at all because he is a conservative who sometimes criticizes Republicans. --CAVincent (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation on criticism

It's important to include criticism of someone whose job it is to criticize. I added a reference to Eric Alterman's book "Sound and Fury" so there's some acknowledgement of outside opinion, rather than necessarily an explicit criticism of Will in the entry itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Panorama (talk • contribs).

Eric Alterman is hardly an unbiased source. If you really want to do this, don't you think you should use someone who has even a pretense of neutrality. Caper13 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's important to include criticism of someone whose job it is to criticize." Why? Where is that in Wikipedia's policies?0nullbinary0 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

His name

Isn't his name actually George F. Will? I mean pretty much universally. Aaron Bowen 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg

File:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

McCain criticism

Where is the section on his criticism of the McCain campaign? Gang14 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been waiting for you to write it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing, what is there, to reflect that the election has ended. BJAtreides (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Toupee?

What's the consensus on the authenticity of his haircut? Tsuguya (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why s Chris Mooney constantly unediting this page when he is accurately described as a Democrat polemicist and left wing activist? He shouldn't be allowed and any further editing ought to cause a ban by the wki rules. Will wouldn't care about Mooney's description on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.42.21 (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude doesn't wear jeans.

Insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.40.125 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not wearing jeans is one thing. Ranting in one's syndicated column (which appears in such publications as Newsweek and the WSJ) against blue jeans (and those who wear them) as being symptomatic of everything that is wrong with modern society is quite another. Such a stance might make one question the man's judgment (his views on Donald Trump and Sarah Palin notwithstanding). Of course, that being said, one could probably find many people across the aisle who hold similar opinions--about khakis, that is. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Abortion Citation

That Washington Post column does not support the assertion that he considers the issue unimportant. Perhaps there is another column in which he says that, but it is not present in that column. Even if one were to try to find it implicit in his column, it would be a stretch, and even were it less of a stretch, it would be imprudent to imply such a statement from ambiguous language. However, here there is simply nothing at all to even lead one to the conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.214 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any point at which Will condemned or supported the legality of abortion. When I looked back at the article I don't know why I said he thought it was unimportant, I wrote this a while ago and hadn't been back. Saying that he just belives Roe V. Wade to be unconstitutional would come across to most readers as calling him Pro-Life, so I think there should be some reference to the lack of clarity about his position.JohnM.Kelly (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not find anything in Will's article in the Washington post that was referenced in note [26] to support the assertion, "On abortion, Will believes that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional.[26]".

He said that "Roe short-circuited a democratic process" and that in the days before Roe, "democracy was allowed to function" I'd say that he's condemning the decision on legal grounds.JohnM.Kelly (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would doubt that a Supreme Court decision can be ever considered unconstitutional, as it is the Court that actually is responsible for interpreting the constitution. 71.50.124.14 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)mghood

Not that it held any relevance regarding this article (which merely must report what Will thinks) but anyway:

So you hold that blacks can never be U.S. citizens and that "separate but equal"-segregation is constitutional because the Supreme Court actually issued such decisions. The SCOTUS reversed the latter decision half a century later but never the former. Oh, and the death penalty is both unconstitutional AND constitutional, as SCOTUS held both. Well, SCOTUS consists of human beings and as such they are fallible just like an government insitution. And that SCOTUS actually has the right to deem laws unconstitutional is based on nothing than the same court's assertion (the constitution never states this). Views like yours are actually a threat to the constitution. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

I think I'm going to remove all but the Ice level/Jimmy Carter enteries. The other three really seem irrelevent. Any dissagreements? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|JohnM.Kelly (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by JohnM.Kelly (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: "2012 Election," I'm not sure how right it is to call a missed election prediction a "controversy," since there is nothing to dispute inherent in his prediction, as far as I know. Additionally, the use of the personal pronoun over the proper name is not ideal. I don't want to step on any toes by editing a page (I've never done it before), but I feel this new section should just be deleted from Controversies. It is neither suitably written nor relevant to the section.

68.84.29.242 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs an Early Life section

Just saying where he was born isn't much compared to most Wikipedia articles. A little about his heritage and a few other details to sketch a little more about his earlier years and formation before leaving home. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

David Foster Wallace

Is that the same George Will whose father Charlie Rose said was David Foster Wallace's father's mentor?

0.47 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPStHVi0SI&feature=related

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.55.93 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The victimization section

I'm going to go ahead and open this discussion, as I expect more back and forth editing on the new section. To be clear, to follow WP:BLP policies, we need to be very careful to avoid original research and synthesis with regard to Will's controversial article. We can't interpret what he said; we can only report what he said and what others have said in response. Here is an example of a good article that could be used to source more details about the controversy itself, rather than individual responses: "Washington Post Opinion Editor Defends George Will’s ‘Survivor Privilege’ Column As Twitter Backlash Continues". It contains a lot of good information, and mentions that the Washington Post plans to publish responses to the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you put a quote from the WP editor who defended Will. A quote from the letter by three senators taking offense at the comments, as well as a quote from the editor of the St. Louis Dispatch who dropped wills column are included. I would like to see how the WP editor defended Will. It is a genuine controversy in any case. How often to U.S. Senators weigh in on a newspaper column? Very rarely. Chisme (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion.

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

Saying "Religion: Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color: Bald", "TV Channel: Off" or "Type of shoe: Barefoot". Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious fundamentalists.

According to our page on religion, "59% of the world's population is religious, and 36% are not religious, including 13% who are atheists, ". "Religion = Atheist" does not differentiate atheists from the 23% who are non-religious and non-atheist.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

I have changed "Religion: Atheist" to "Religion: None:" on hundreds of Wikipedia infoboxes, and have received many thanks for doing so. In only a tiny minority of the edits has anyone objected to or reverted the edit, and in every case so far the consensus was either "Religion: none" or removing the religion entry from the infobox.

I do not believe that there is no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" here or on any other page on Wikipedia. There was no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" at WP:MOS, and I am confident that any WP:RFC on the subject will result in a finding of "no consensus."

Nor will anyone ever get consensus for adding "Hair Color = Bald", "Television Channel = Off" "Wind speed = Total Vacuum" "Birth Date = Banana", or any other entry that cause a significant number of readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date..." or "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..." Even if Lady Gaga decides to list Banana as her birth date, we will document that in the main article with a citation to a reliable source. In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material.

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist".

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, "Atheist", while technically correct, is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Yes, Penn & Teller reject all theistic religions. But they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. "Religion = none" is the only choice that represents the data accurately and without a fundamentalist bias. --Guy Macon (talk) Posted 08:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC), Edited 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

the complaint that atheism is not a religion is a red herring that is not at issue. The short line in the infobox codes a person's announced views on the subject of religion. "Atheism" tells a great deal in one word--information the reader wants. Lots of people have complex beliefs about religion that cannot be easily encapsulated in one or two words but they get coded anyway. George Will when asked said he was an atheist which is a quick convenient summary of his views on the topic. so there is no problem here. We might perhaps have a POV issue of editors who do not like atheists wanted to suppress their views, but that is not allowed. For those who want o be cutesy "bald is not a hair color.".... When the question is "hair?" then "bald" is indeed an answer. When the question is "Which TV station did he prefer" then "did not watch" is a useful answer. Asked what sound there was," then "silence" is a useful answer. The alternative is a zero-information blank space. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I opened a new discussion on this topic at: Template talk:Infobox person. Rjensen (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for the idea that: "The short line in the infobox codes a person's announced views on the subject of religion." That is not what it says. We write the words that readers see, not "code". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep asking this question, but never seem to get an answer.... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at Template talk:Infobox person, like every other discussion on this topic, shows a clear consensus for "Religion: None". BTW, the claim that "The alternative is a zero-information blank space" is factually incorrect. The alternative is "Religion: None". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. Rjensen is attempting to provide an answer to a different question to the one that the infobox parameter demands. The infobox seeks to answer the question of. "what is his religion", not "what is his attitude to religion". The answer to the question of "what is his religion" is "None". The discussion at Template talk:Infobox person suggests so far that Rjensen is in a minority on this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User warned for edit warning.[2] If behavior continues, I advise not re-reverting multiple times per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Use WP:AN3RR instead.--Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, then we should fill in this blank in the way that is most informative. Will writes extensively on ethical issues and church-state relations, so his religious views are pertinent to his main public role as a commentator. Assuming that he has made known his religious beliefs, leaving a blank under religion is the worst option. “None” is only marginally better, as it leaves open a number of meanings, including atheism, agnosticism, deism, or any nondenominational belief. “Atheism,” if that is indeed the case, would be the most informative to readers, who will, I think, clearly understand it to mean a belief, and not membership in a religion. Does anyone really believe that readers will take it to mean membership in a religious group? Plazak (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment The question of whether or not atheism is a religion is far from settled. In fact based on the innumerable hits from the Google search for "is atheism a religion" it appears to be a very hot topic for debate. Just a random selection of arguments on the subject suggesting at least the possibility that it is a religion... (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). I want to stress that I am taking no position on the question itself. All I am saying is that the question clearly exists, and the answer is just as clearly not settled. Beyond which, I don't think it can be credibly argued that the term "atheist" does not, at the very least, denote one's relationship to religion. On that basis alone it would seem perfectly reasonable to include it in the info box under the religion heading. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for concise, uncontroversial summaries of material that is in the article. If, as can easily be shown, a significant number of atheists object to atheism being called a religion, then "religion - atheist" should not be in the infoboxes of WP:BLPs of atheists unless we have a citation to a reliable source that shows that this particular atheist considers atheism to be a religion. So far I have found one such page: Ian McKellen.

Evidence that a significant number of atheists object to calling atheism a religion:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2013/03/18/for-the-last-time-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=131

https://blevkog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/why-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.ibtimes.com/atheism-not-religion-we-dont-want-your-tax-breaks-ffrf-feds-1396635

http://noscope.com/2014/atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/atheists/faqs.html (Question #3)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The upshot of your argument is that you are giving a specific group of people an exclusive right to self define themselves without any question or external challenge. That's not how things work on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that putting "atheist" in the religion box means that atheism is a religion, any more than putting "none" means that "none" is a religion. Both are equally objectionable if you want to follow that line. And I don't believe that readers would make that interpretation, other than perhaps those who already believe it. What it does is to inform the reader of that person's religious view, or lack of it; it informs the reader far better than the vague "none", which is subject to far more interpretation. We should come down on the side of better informing the reader, and put "atheist" if that is the case. Plazak (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is information to the reader and Guy Macon wants to suppress information. His goal is to protect innocent readers from knowing that prestigious people are atheists. The category is about people's relationship to issues of religion and "atheist" is a very real relationship. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not your allegation about another editor's motives is true or not. It's not an argument you should be making, and it's irrelevant. Again, on what basis do you argue that "The category is about people's relationship to issues of religion" - when that is simply not what the words plainly say? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep asking this question, but never seem to get an answer.... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, once again I have corrected your indentation as allowed by WP:TPOC. Again I remind you that, according to WP:INDENT, "The use of normal indentation is a behavioral guideline that editors are expected to follow." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again we have an attempt to suggest that the question of whether or not atheism is a religion is settled. It is not, as even the most cursory Google search indicates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No such attempt has been made, as you will see if you read my comments. In fact, I specifically pointed out that that "atheism is a religion" is a standard talking point for religious fundamentalists. What I said is that it is WP:NPOV and does not belong in an infobox according to Wikipedia content guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You have repeatedly and unambiguously stated that atheism is not a religion, and you are citing sources from one side of the debate as proof to that effect. This is a very hotly debated subject, that is being discussed in all kinds of forums including the NY Times, and you are unilaterally calling the other side and the sources referencing it NPOV. I am starting to wonder if there is not some personal prejudice at work here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot tell the difference between claiming that atheism is not a religion and claiming that the question of whether or not atheism is a religion is settled, we may have a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. There is a world of difference between claiming that atheism is not a religion and claiming that everybody agrees that atheism is not a religion. In this case, what counts is what atheists think, because the pages we are discussing are BLPs of atheists. You are free to use whatever definition fundamentalist christians favor when editing the infoboxes of fundamentalist christian BLPs, but you are not going to get away with inserting unsourced fundamentalist christian arguments into the BLPs of atheists, any more than you would be allowed to insert unsourced atheist arguments into the BLPs of christians. And both you (Ad Orientem) and Rjensen need to stop making claims that I have various unsavory motives. My only motive is to have these pages follow Wikipedia's policies -- WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP in particular. --23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Guy Macon (talk)

Guy Mason has unfortunate motives. It is his personal belief that atheism is not a religion and is not a religious category, and the unsavory part is that he is imposing it on others--on heretics, we might say. Readers who disagree with his views will not get information on George Will---a subject he seems to know zero about even as he deliberately challenges the wp:competence of other editors here. From his weak arguments I conclude he known nothing about comparative religion. He seems to assume that God really exists--if God does not exist and the atheists are right then his arguments are very poor indeed. As far as consensus is concerned, Guy does NOT have a consensus on this particular article--indeed he seems to be edit warring a great deal here. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

His personal belief? It's a fact, not a belief—of course atheism is not a religion. The problem is that editors try to put overly simplistic summaries in infoboxes—there are many people for whom there is no word or phrase that accurately conveys their religious stance. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Like Rjensen's false accusation of edit warring (I have not reverted even once) the accusation that I am trying to "hide" information fails the sniff test. The article is the proper place to present nuanced information like this, and I would oppose anyone who tried to "hide" notable and properly sourced religious information from any Wikipedia article. That being said, putting information in infoboxes that the subject of the article is very likely to find offensive when we have a noncontroversial alternative ("None") that conveys the same information more accurately is just plain wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Macon admits he has changed the "religion" box on hundreds of articles --he did so in complete ignorance of the subject's religiosity and in defiance of editors who did know something. that's editing from ignorance. I suggest that Macon a) does not know what "religion" means in our day and does not know what "atheist" means. Perhaps he can supply his working definitions. He might start with Wikipedia's article on Religion which states: The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, it doesn't matter here that "atheist" is not the opposite of "religious". The key here is that atheism doesn't fit into the definition of "religion", in that it is not an organized system or collection of beliefs. Rather, it indicates a lack of belief. You seem to be making quite a few personal attacks in this discussion. Let's focus on the issue, not the editors. Omnedon (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Logic failure in assertion earlier in this section that is the basis for the current wording requiring "None" only: "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion." Uh, no! There is no reason to provide [B], since listing religion as "None" already provides that. Use of parenthesis next to it (Atheist) shows that "Atheist", etc. is a subset of None. That doesn't relieve the obligation for sourcing, item [A]. And no, adding such information isn't going to cause confusion if sourced, it will inform the reader. The current crusade (pun intended) to scrub "Atheist" from the articles and infoboxes reeks of strong POV. I followed the discussion to the Ian McKellen page where we see that the infobox has been scrubbed, even though his own words satisfy both [A] and [B]. The solution for making this NPOV seems obvious: "None (Atheist)" when the person self-identifies as Atheist. In cases where they are non-specific "None" should be fine and other combinations of "None (...)" are possible as well. And for the record I'm largely ambivalent about this matter. I'm not even sure what the sides are (they don't appear clearly defined to me), but I can see that there is an easy way to handle this that is NPOV, requires sourcing, informs, and doesn't claim that Atheism is a religion. Red Harvest (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems eminently reasonable. FTR I share your suspicions about POV editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Religion: None (Atheist)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Omnedon, I have edited my comment to correct the error you pointed out. In now says "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous." Ad Orientem, If you think there is POV editing, please bring it up at WP:ANI instead of making accusations here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but there was no consensus reached on this matter with regard to providing slightly more information and thereby removing ambiguity. The reason there are only a few left this way seems to be a result of your efforts and other hurdles specifically to limit the number to self-identified, notable (and with sources.)

Adding amplification after "None" as in "None (atheist)" etc. does not produce "astonishment" and clearly indicates that atheism is not being classed as a religion. Otherwise "None (Catholic/Methodist/Zoroastrian/etc.)" would be a valid entry. "None (atheist)" is no more astonishing than "None" itself is in the religion field--readers that you imagine must be equally astonished to learn that "None" is a religion.

The banana bit is a logic failure. Atheism/agnosticism are directly relevant to religion and views of religion. Bananas have nothing to do with either topic.

Consensus was not reached in the other discussion to do as you are now doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person The matter of the parentheticals was not addressed in closure and your view that "atheist/atheism" cannot be present in any form does not have consensus. That leaves it to the article page.

"None" is just as ambiguous in this case as if the only other answer allowed in the religion box were "Yes". There are a variety of flavors of "None" just as there are a variety of options for a specific religion. There is no reason to remove a single word parenthetical descriptor, other than personal bias/censorship. Red Harvest (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I Agree with Red Harvest. I will add that a deeply religious person can indeed be an atheist. I suspect Guy Macon is pushing his personal belief that you have to believe in God to be religious. I suppose he rejects Secular Buddhism, which does not advocate belief in gods. He also rejects Webster's dictionary (3rd) definition, which does not require a belief in a deity: "relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality : manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance ." So we have a case of one editor aggressively pushing his personal theology. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, you clearly lack the required competence to determine my internal mental state, and my only "belief" in this matter is that we should follow the clear instructions in the MOS and the clear consensus shown by my count of hundreds of pages. I would appreciate it if you would stick to discussing article content without making inappropriate personal comments. Red Harvest, if you imagine that there wasn't a consensus across hundreds of pages long before I came along, do what I did; count them up, tally how many I edited, and publish your results. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then let me ask the question: are you editing on the basis of the notion that a religious person has to believe in a god? it certainly appears that way but you can clear that up. If you could be religious and not believe in a god, then atheism qualifies as a religion. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the consensus is not as you describe it. I've read and participated in enough of the recent discussion to recognize that you are ramrodding your own personal views (based on some easily refuted arguments) rather than consensus. Actual editors have made that clear rather than page count. And with your crusade, the page count data is dubious anyway, because of your editing practices/agenda. Circular logic is not persuasive. Red Harvest (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Red Harvest, prove it. Do the count I mentioned, post an RfC or take it to one of the other venues mentioned in WP:DRR. And please stop making personal comments about other editor's motivations. You are no more a mind reader than Rjensen is.

To answer Rjensen's question "are you editing on the basis of the notion that a religious person has to believe in a god?" No. I am editing on the basis of the clear wording of the Wikipedia manual of Style and the existing consensus. I would be editing the opposite way if that's what the MOS and existing consensus told me to do, and in fact I checked both before deciding which way to edit. I really have no strong feelings on the subject and am rather amused when you assume without evidence that I do. Again, I strongly suggest that you stop trying to divinate my internal emotional state and beliefs. You really, really suck at it. Just stick to discussing article content, please.

Alas, Rjensen, you then followed your question up with a claim that "If you could be religious and not believe in a god, then atheism qualifies as a religion." That isn't just a logical fallacy, it is absolute bollocks. There are many people who are religious and do not believe in a god. See Atheism in Hinduism, Unitarian Universalism#Beliefs, Christian atheism, Nontheist Quakers, and Pandeism. (That last one is interesting in that it holds that there used to be a creator deity who ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity and became the universe -- so they agree with atheists about the present universe and the present lack of gods, but disagree about the existence of a creator deity. This, of course, just highlights the many reasons why we shouldn't try to cram fine religious distinctions into infoboxes.) Not having a belief in god is not a religion for the same reason that not collecting stamps is not a hobby. The fact that people exist who collect stamps but have no hobby (they have a business) and that people exist who have hobbies but do not collect stamps in no way implies that not collecting stamps is a hobby. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I agree with a lot of the points you made when you opened this section. Rjensen, atheism is not a religion. And even if, hypothetically, it was, how would "None (atheist)" satisfy that? It is problematic. "None" is the appropriate entry for many good reasons which have been stated. Red Harvest, despite your claim, there are indeed reasons to exclude the parenthetical portion. To put that down entirely to editor bias is unreasonable given the amount of discussion that has taken place on this subject. Omnedon (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy agrees that a person can a) be religious and b) be an atheist. Then he resorts to his high school jingles about hobbies. No--Hobbies have zero to do with topic. If a person is religious and follows Buddhism, We can code him a Religion: Buddhist. If a person is religious and follows atheism we can code him an Religion: atheist. Atheists of course do have a belief about God. (They have a belief that no gods currently exist.). Atheism is their religion -- that follows the dictionary definition [Webster's 3rd: religious = "relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality : manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance ."] Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheism in no way fits into that definition, particularly because of the use of the terms "ultimate reality" and "ultimate importance". Simply having a negative belief about god(s) does not make for a religion. Omnedon (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, I have never heard anyone say "Atheism is their religion" as you did above unless they were a fundamentalist Christian pushing one of the talking points he learned in apologetics class, possibly presuppositional apologetics. I will not presume to read your mind or ask you any personal questions, as you have so freely done with me, but I am making you aware that is how you sound and that I believe that my conclusion passes the WP:DUCK test. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Go to http://www.positiveatheism.org/ and search for "our own religion". Even if atheism is not a religion, and I agree that it is not, it is the answer to a religious question ("Is God the ultimate reality?"). Further, atheism is not some sort of default like "not collecting stamps". Atheism is, historically, much more rare than various forms of theism. (It still is.) You are using Wikipedia as a soapbox with your edit summaries. Srnec (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Prove that you are on a personal mission on this subject pushing your own POV while you use circular logic? Already done. I don't have to RfC etc. as the consensus you claim is nonexistent. There is not consensus against it. There, DONE. I suppose I could do like you and edit a bunch of pages (spamming obnoxious summaries on each as you have done) then say, "See, look the numbers support me" but I'm not going to game the system the way you do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the qualifier after "None", other than demonstrated personal bias in the matter. It is already subject to limitations on sourcing, being self-described, and having relevance. These seem like reasonable limits to me.

The lack of consensus is obvious because we had two similar sized groups that saw this much differently. Your side says that there is no way any qualifiers/explanations can be added, and has not even accepted that there is a problem or that some sort of improvement should be done to address it. When one side is reasonable and looks for compromise to address all of the issues (ours) and the other side is completely unreasonable and employing the most dubious logic and strawmen, then it becomes rather obvious where the problem resides.

One of your key arguments is that people can't understand what "None" means if there are any other words after it. Combine that with the bananas shtick and your spamming of cutesy quotes and there isn't a lot of room left for reasoned discussion. Red Harvest (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Red Harvest, evasion noted. You chose not to back up your claims with evidence, and I choose to ignore your claims and stop responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

When I responded to the same list of points you cut and pasted to the Talk:Johann Hari page, Guy, in particular providing evidence contrary to your claim of consensus against Religion = None (atheist), you essentially didn't reply and suggested I tried dispute resolution. So I'm not entirely sure what you want from people.

Be which as it may, a better solution may be to introduce a new field to describe spiritual views which are not specifically related to a particular religion. So I will attempt to bring that proposal forward, as I have time.--Merlinme (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits.

Quotes from the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues:

• "The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behavior, and reminds me a bit of Collect." --Kraxler

• "The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear" --Rhododendrites

• "If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus." --Lukeno94

• "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. ... Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot." --Kraxler

So once again, I am editing this page to reflect that clear consensus and reverting attempts to ignore or reinterpret consensus. I strongly urge taking this to WP:ANI instead of edit warring to push a version that is clearly against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And true to form you misrepresent the closure which says: "'Religion: Atheist' should not appear." It still does not address the parenthetical. There is not clear consensus on this page nor was there in the discussion linked. Red Harvest (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion specifically addresses the parenthetical. What part of "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established" and "The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear" are you having trouble understanding? Every single comment in that ANI thread concerns changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None". That's the edit that was reported.

Also, the following public thanks I received for changing "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)" to "Religion: None" reflects the strong consensus on this across multiple Wikipedia pages.

Extended content

Note: This count does not include the much larger number of public thanks supporting edits changing "Religion: Atheist" or "Religion: Agnostic" to "Religion: None". Rhododendrites thanked you for your edit on Danny Ledonne.[39] Carptrash thanked you for your edit on Emma Goldman.[40] Dr.K. thanked you for your edit on Alexis Tsipras.[41] Mlpearc thanked you for your edit on Alan Alda.[42] David in DC thanked you for your edit on Aaron Swartz.[43] WWGB thanked you for your edit on John Gorton.[44] NebY thanked you for your edit on Benito Mussolini.[45] Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Slobodan Miloševic.[46] Gerda Arendt thanked you for your edit on Template talk:Infobox person.[47] RolandR thanked you for your edit on Karl Marx.[48] Editor2020 thanked you for your edit on Abu Isa al-Warraq.[49] Plot Spoiler thanked you for your edit on As'ad AbuKhalil.[50] Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Zoran Milanovic.[51] Binksternet thanked you for your edit on Yuri Andropov.[52] Ugog Nizdast thanked you for your edit on Sanal Edamaruku.[53] HiLo48 thanked you for your edit on Eric Idle.[54] Rms125a@hotmail.com thanked you for your edit on James Gunn (filmmaker).[55] Bastun thanked you for your edit on Ray D'Arcy.[56] Demiurge1000 thanked you for your edit on Colin Challen.[57] Herostratus thanked you for your edit on Joseph Stalin.[58] BullRangifer thanked you for your edit on James Randi.[59] MarnetteD thanked you for your edit on Ophelia Benson.[60] TJRC thanked you for your edit on Michael Newdow.[61] Alison thanked you for your edit on Sheila Jeffreys.[62]

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not address this. Once again you are manufacturing consensus. The topic of the ANI was your tactics/spamming. As the closer for the other debate stated in the ANI: "I'm inclined to hope that Guy Macon will consider turning down the volume a little bit on this particular subject." Red Harvest (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your refusal to follow consensus and your previous incivility[63][64][65][66][67], I am going to take this to WP:ANI. This will take a day or two, so feel free to file first if you think that will give you some sort of advantage. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

While your at it report your Wikihounding and false accusation of another of the same. I am following consensus. Red Harvest (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is quite clear, 3RR is also quite clear. Peace! Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Red Harvest, Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Template talk:Infobox person) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is for you to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on George Will. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118091131/http://old.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200311060839.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200311060839.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070627050228/http://www.bradleyfdn.org/cm-prizes.asp?ID=2005BradleyPrizeWinners to http://www.bradleyfdn.org/cm-prizes.asp?ID=2005BradleyPrizeWinners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)