Talk:American Atheists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Suggested major categories
[edit] founding
[edit] objectives
[edit] methods by which they achive their goals
[edit] current situation/what is going on now
[edit] Affiliated groups
[edit] POV tag, 6 April 2006
This smells of poisoning the well to me.
- "Ironically" to whom? WP:WTA.
- "...amid rumors that the O'Hairs had actually absconded with organization funds and $500,000 in gold coins and fled to New Zealand..." could use a citation/verification.
- "the acerbic Madalyn Murray O'Hair (once touted as the most hated woman in America,) who reportedly delighted in confronting and insulting "Christers" as she liked referring to Christians." verification, acerbic to whom?
--Christopherlin 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ironically means something that one does not expect. The article says that society believed that a person who won a supreme court action would change their position 2π around after the fact. I don't know if we can do that, if you don't like it, remove it.
- citation/verification -->> ABC News, July 22, 1999
- removed There was only evidence to support the "Christers" as she liked referring to Christians. Which couldn't stand on its own, so I removed it. The location sentance belongs at the top anyway.
I await your removal of the POV tag
--metta, The Sunborn 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I was going to look through the history of the article (when I had more time) to see if any users or IPs were pushing a particular POV. Feel free to check that out.
The thing with "ironically" is that it imparts and editorial POV. Maintaining NPOV is difficult. It makes you second-guess your usual writing style. In short, (ideally) your own personal biases should not be discerned from your edits. WP can include facts about opinions, but in a balanced context. Yeah. Kind of weird.
I'm not sure if it's "my job" to remove the POV tag, as I was the one to tag the article such. --Christopherlin 06:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added the citations. GeorgeC 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering of the originally 3 statements made by Christopherlin, none have been resolved; and that not http://www.thetrog.com/mmohair/mmohair.html nor http://dunamai.com/ are credible, NPOV sources, (they should be viewed by those on this talk page) this article should definately retain its NPOV status. The article concerns John Kerry a little too much. Although the fact that he voted against the Newdow verdict should be included (and is sited very well), remember the article is about the Organization American Atheists, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair or John Kerry. Concentration on what the group has done, in terms of marches, fundraisers, protests, lawsuits, etc. would be much more apporpriate for such an article. 須藤 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good call, the paragraph that reads:
-
- Ironically, William J. Murray, on whose behalf Murray v. Curlett was filed, became a born again Christian, an evangelical Baptist and announced it on Mother's Day, 1980. It caused a lifelong, unresolved rift between Murray and his acerbic mother, who despised "dirty Christers." [1]. "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times. He is beyond human forgiveness," she said. [2]
- is completely POV (and unencyclopedic) and would have to be re-worded as it currently stands.--metta, The Sunborn 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel Words
From the article :
William Murray has contradicted his mother (and some would say himself)
Who says this? What are their names? Is there a source for these comments? Serenaacw 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)