Jump to content

Talk:Michael Newdow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titles

[edit]

Newdow's doctorate and ordination both appear to come from the Universal Life Church, which will grant them to anyone no questions asked. [1] I don't think it's appropriate to use the titles "Rev." and "Dr." under those circumstances. Consequently I am removing them. (I'll grant that someone could be referred to as "Rev." if they were an actual Universal Life Church member, but as far as I can tell Newdow doesn't actually participate in the ULC in any way.) Elliotreed 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Newdow appears to be an actual medical doctor. [2] So that one I will grant. Elliotreed 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly enough to argue against removing the "Rev." title on my own, as long as it's mentioned in that first paragraph. --Maxamegalon2000 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that the the references to 'Dr. Newdow' and 'Mr. Newdow' throughout an article seems like fairly uncommon pattern in wikipedia articles. My suggestion is stick with 'Newdow' after the opening bit. If someone is reading the article, they are probably aware he is a he, a doctor, holds a law degree, and runs a church. -David Hunt, 27 April 2008.


i noticed in the personal area that he is concidered to be jewish and it is stated that he is of jewish back groud he being an athiest he has no right o be called a jew nor does have the right to be associated with the word jew or jewish this should be deleted as it gives us jews yet another blemish no that we dont have enough agaist us alread like antisemtism jews true jews beleive in GOD!! we are not atheiest we know who created us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.4.38 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to add your comment once. That we have an entire category of Jewish atheists with articles suggests that your analysis is inaccurate. --Maxamegalon2000 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is classified as Jewish is not up to your personal interpretation. We do not decide whether they are worthy of the title, we simply report that they identify as. Again, this goes to the neutrality and original research rules - we do not take facts and make our own analysis out of them 76.105.10.80 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism is not strictly just a religion in the Christian doctrinal sense of religion. In fact, neither is Hinduism or Buddhism. I'm not sure how much even Christian can be purely seen as doctrinal in the strictest sense of the word. In college I was often approached by Jewish missionaries who were looking for secular Jews to convert to religious Judaism. The first thing they asked was always "Are you Jewish?" They clearly meant by birth. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that guy has gone to Albert Einstein's page (and the pages of numerous others), and added "he has no right o be called a jew nor does have the right to be associated with the word jew or jewish this should be deleted as it gives us jews yet another blemish no that we dont have enough agaist us alread like antisemtism..........." - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's inauguration

[edit]

I corrected several items in this section. I've been closely involved in this lawsuit and read every legal paper submitted by both sides and would be happy to provide references to any comment, and to include them in the article if anyone feels it's needed. Arodb (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out in another section, the sources you have included in that section are inadequate, to say the least. You can't just provide a link to a PDF of a legal ruling. Reference #19 is worse. Sorry, but a press release issued by a party to a lawsuit is not what I would call an adequate source, and I believe Wikipedia is in agreement with me on that. And if the Associated Press and the Washington Post have commented on this case, as you claim, why is neither cited in regards to that specific statement. The Washington Post is cited later in the section, but that link is dead. Moreover you, or whoever, "edited"(I use the term very loosely) that section claim that both the AP and the Washington Post are incorrect in regards to the case. Where is the evidence of that? You then throw in what appears to be your own commentary on the issue when you include the following statement: "....although the president's right to express his private prayer in words of his choosing was specifically not challenged in the lawsuit." To make matters worse, that particular opinion statement is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The president's free speech rights extend to what he wants to say in public, including at an inauguration, and thus a statement that no one challenged his right to mention God in private prayers is completely meaningless and entirely superfluous. Frankly, the Obama inauguration section, in terms of both the obvious bias and the poor quality of the sources, is the most poorly written section of the entry.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

[edit]

Please note a banned user operates a website which has no tie to the Michael Newdow. That website appears to be commerical in nature and has no business being listed in this article. Below is a list of spamming by that banned user adding in that link.

Should that link reappear please remove it without haste. Arbustoo 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have a political agenda

[edit]

I was interested to review his history and I was wondering what his political agenda was. It probably is not too cynical to call into question his honesty, given the nefarious behavior of the political machinery associated with the previous administration, and the lengths that the like of Cheney and Rove would stoop to advance their twisted views. For example, every time Micahel Newdow opens his mouth, the religious "right" gets lots of traction against the "..godless socialists running our country.." even if the Democrats in power are far from being any where near socialist (or even liberal or social for that matter), and are just as likely to cloak themselves in the mantle of organized religion.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that any of his actions are consistent with someone who has the drive, intelligence or conviction to be an emergency physician or a lawyer. (Regardless of what you think of the legal profession in the US, it isn't terribly easy to graduate from a decent law school as what most people think--of course it probably was a relief after medical school and residency, but still a lot more time and effort than most people appreciate.) His entire persona seems contrived to rub people the wrong way, and galvanize support behind the Jim Bakers and Jerry Falwells of the world

He is either a quixotic eccentric or, more plausible, a tool of the neocons and evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you trying to say that he's too smart to be a Democrat, or that atheists aren't smart enough to be doctors and lawyers? --Maxamegalon2000 04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is pursuing his cause in a way that tends to alienate people. There is a big difference between the intellectual sense and intelligence it takes to be a doctor and the social sense and skills it takes to win people over. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for this entry are wholly inadequate

[edit]

I could be mistaken on this, but I believe that primary sources are not allowed at Wikipedia. A brief glance at the reference section reveals that at least a third of the sources used are primary sources. Wikipedia generally frowns upon the direct citation of legal briefs, court rulings, press releases, etc. In other words, you just can't provide a PDF link to a ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, whoever edited this entry seems to believe it his job to point out what he believes is the faulty reasoning behind the rulings of various justices and judges. This is most evident in the Obama Inauguration section. Either the entry needs to be rewritten or secondary sources need to be used.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes

[edit]

I am of the opinion that changing "Religion: none" to "Religion: Atheist" in BLP infoboxes implies that Atheism is a religion -- an argument commonly put forth by fundamentalists in the form "Atheism is just another faith-based religion."

In my opinion, Atheism is not a religion for the same reasons that baldness is not a type of hair color, off isn't "just another television channel", and vacuum is not a kind of gas.

I brought this question up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes and got mixed opinions.

In the case of Michael Newdow, he appears to reject all religions, not just theistic ones, so there is also an accuracy question.

So, what should the infobox of this article say? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP who keeps changing the page has never given an explanation in an edit summary, has not joined this discussion, and the only edits from that account are to this infobox. I have placed an invitation to discuss this on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm the one who's been changing it. I agree atheism is not a religion. I am simply putting the word atheist in the parenthesis to clarify what his lack of religious belief's are. He could be agnostic, atheist, apatheist, nontheist, secular humanist, etc. So that's why I have it phrased as None (atheist). I am not saying his religion is atheist. I am saying he is not religious, AND he is an atheist. Again, this is only to clarify his lack of religious beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.189.140 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you. Do you by any chance drive a 300ZX TT?
It seems to me that the body of the article clarifies his lack of religious beliefs adequately. Infoboxes do not have to contains every detail that is in the article, and in this case your attempt to put that unneeded detail in the infobox gives us the same flawed wording that various fundamentalists keep inserting into various articles in support of their "atheism is just another religion" argument. They wouldn't be putting such a large effort into inserting the word "Atheism" into the religion entry on dozens of infoboxes if they didn't think it supported their argument. I agree that it does, and if you read the MOS section I linked to above you will see that a lot of (but not all) Wikipedia editors agree with me.
BTW, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but I was simply following what was done in most other Wikipedia articles. Visit Cenk Uygur, Douglas Campbell and Pete Stark just to name a few. Almost every Wikipedia article that says none for religious views clarifies what the lack of religious beliefs are in parenthesis (i.e. atheist, agnostic). I certainly don't think atheism or agnosticism is a religion, but it doesn't hurt to put that in parenthesis after putting "none" in the info box. 98.112.189.140 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

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) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Newdow. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Newdow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Newdow&oldid=1206708909"