Talk:List of atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review List of atheists has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Ath
List of atheists is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia.
For more information and how you can help click Show →
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. List of rejected people

Contents

[edit] Literature, arts and entertainment

Rather than revert a reversion of a reversion, I thought I'd pause and seek consensus on the question of whether the recently consolidated Arts, entertainment and literature category ought to be broken back down. I contend that it is too broad. The category currently encompasses such diverse professions as sports, journalism, literature, fashion design, and music. I believe this broadness makes the list less useful to readers, who might be researching atheists in specific areas, and will not be well-served by this hodge-podge category. "Arts" is certainly ambiguous, but "Literature" and "Entertainment" are less so, and ought to be treated separately. What does everyone think? 69.23.115.197 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. In this case, I would be a "splitter" rather than a "lumper." logologist|Talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be broken into "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment". That would probably also require a case-by-case basis though; I'm sure if Britney Spears were an atheist, she'd belong in the "Entertainment" section; classical composers would belong in "Arts". They would both, of course, technically be "musicians". In between would be Frank Zappa, who was both an artist and an entertainer (thought I think he would better belong in "Arts"). --Switch 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, in this case I'm a "splitter" as well. The old "Arts and literature" and "Entertainment" were not ideal but probably the best we could do. BTW, take the point about Zappa's cross-over status but reckon the majority view would lean towards "Entertainment" for him. If a few of his works ever make it into the Penguin Guide to Classical then maybe I'd go "Arts"...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's no chance a jazz composer will ever be in certain publications, simply for the fat that jazz is not classical by definition. But as for the separation, I suggest either a separation of songwriters/performers, or a simple old/new. --Switch 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I shall allow no such thing. It is completely open to interpretation and elitism by general consensus, which is a lack of objective reasoning due to subjectivity - personal preference is a nonissue. Verdi was not considered art at one point, yet he is now. The doubt of differences between jazz composers and classical composers is obvious difference between this, and one can merely refer to the wikipedia entry "highbrow", as well as "lowbrow" and "kitsch" to see how much of a lack of consensus there actually is on defining what is art. If one is going to include musicians, all musicians must be included. I will accept only if the category is extremely specific so as to avoid any debate of "art" and "non-art". In this case, every primary career of the persons in that category must have its own category. George Carlin would be under "Comedians", Rimsky-Korsakov would be under "Composers", Ayn Rand would be under "Authors" (and possibly "Philosophers" as well). --68.91.88.159 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoever you are (ever thought of being a name, not a number?!) you'll garner far more respect by avoiding telling your fellow editors what you will and won't accept, and instead proposing alternate solutions to a perceived issue. Nor will threats of reverting changes when you don't have consensus on your side help your cause. Most people who have responded in this section contend that 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' is too broad a category. No-one has suggested that the former 'Arts and literature' and 'Entertainment' sections were perfect, but they did at least break down the overall list of atheists. If you'd like to propose an alternate split, perhaps 'Musicians' (including pop, classical, jazz, et al), 'Authors', 'Visual artists', or whatever, then we can all discuss and hopefully come to a satisfactory agreement. Your current 'solution' of one super-category is hardly satisfactory, nor is your belligerent attitude about it. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Creating a colossal super-category defeats the purpose of having categories at all. logologist|Talk 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I shall split the categories up into specifics, then. You can't expect me to treat your case with respect when you have given no objective reasoning to do so, aside from not liking it and heeding mere convention. "Art" is subjective, and having an "entertainment" section seperate from "art" is subjectively elitist with no grounds for being so. You have yet to address that point. Until you can disprove my argument, I will stand by my case indefinitely. Objectivity does not allow for democracy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:12, November 11, 2006 (UTC).
Ho-hum. While it may be academic now, for the record, no-one above rejected the 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' category because they 'don't like it' but because it was too broad and meaningless. Your bit about 'elitism' was pummelling a straw man, no-one argued for keeping Arts and Entertainment separate on that basis. You've evidently come to the same conclusion as the rest of us re. breaking up the categories and high time too. By the way, friendly advice for the future, you can 'stand by your case' as indefinitely as you like but at the end of the day, if you can't abide the consensus you must try to win hearts and minds on the talk page and gain a new consensus – your case won't be worth much otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, 68.91.88.159, please respect consensus.

Here's a proposal for categories, based in part on List of notable brain tumor patients, which is a featured list:

  1. Activists and educators
  2. Business
  3. Film, television and radio
  4. Music
  5. Philosophy
  6. Politics and law
  7. Science and medicine
  8. Sports
  9. Visual arts
  10. Writing

All, please tell me what you think. 69.23.115.197 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, but I am splitting it up in a way that is a bit more specific. You can alter it to your specifications aftrer that if it's too specific. This is 68.91.88.159 and the message posted recently was my doing as well. I can respect consensus as long as consensus is objective. The standard language in Opera was Italian for quite some time, and that was only because of "consensus" that it was the ideal language to write in. I use that example because the nature of agreement proves very little.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.88.159 (talk • contribs) 21:32, November 11, 2006 (UTC).
I suggest breaking the list into every specific occupation a person listed holds, as anything else would be subjective. Who is to say what is or is not a sport? The "official" classifications are arbitrary, and distinctions between games, sports, and arts are inherently subjective. Rappers can be considered musicians or poets, or distinct from both. Comedians can be writers, activists, educators, physicians, and any number of other professions. Where does art stop being "visual"? What about comic books? Alex Ross and Frank Miller (comics) are both writers and visual artists. Where does the line fall between politics, philosophy and activism? Marx was involved in politics, was a philosopher and was an activist.
I hope my irony wasn't missed; the point is, no division of occupations can ever be entirely free from subjectivity, and will ultimately be reached by consensus. Helping to clean up is great; decreeing that you will not "allow" editors to arrange the list in the way they agree is best is not. --Switch 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well put, Switch. And thanks for your proposal, 69.23.115.197 (be great to see you as a name too, by the way). This looks better than before with the super-cat of 'Arts, Literature and Entertainment' and basing it on an FA list helps. Obviously it's been implemented now but, more importantly, it looks like we have some agreement on it. If anyone out there has any serious issues with the organisation of this page now, let them discuss it here. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James D. Watson

The Wikipedia articles states that Watson is "an outspoken atheist." Does anyone know of an authoritative source for this? Would anyone, perhaps, know how to contact him in order to get it directly from the horse's mouth? logologist|Talk 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Such would be original research, and the information from such contact would also be unverified, by Wikipedia's standards. Both are unacceptable. If a reputable source describes Watson as an atheist or, even better, if a quote is found in which he says he's an atheist or doesn't believe in a God, then that would be acceptable. 69.23.115.197 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of Steven Weinberg and James D. Watson

by User:69.23.115.197 seem to me groundless. Their status as atheists appears well documented at www.positiveatheism.com. logologist|Talk 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that their status as atheists is well documented at positiveatheism.com. Quotes from James D. Watson can be found here. Two of the quotes are of unknown source, which makes them unacceptable. In neither of the remaining quotes does he say he is an atheist, or say that he does not believe in God.
I surveyed all of the quotes from Weinberg. In none of these quotes does he say he is an atheist, or that he does not believe in God. I may have missed something here. If you find any instances in which either of these scientists identifies himself as an atheist or says he does not believe in God, please bring them to my attention. I will be glad to be corrected. 69.23.115.197 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you make of Weinberg's statement to Jonathan Miller, at the end of The Atheism Tapes, program 2 (accessible at "Steven Weinberg," External links):
"I don't believe in God... the god of traditional Judaism and Christianity and Islam seems to me a terrible character. He's a god who... obsessed the degree to which people worship him and anxious to punish with the most awful torments those who didn't worship him in the right way.
"I... had a friend, now dead... who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief... It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too." logologist|Talk 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That is definitive. I put Weinberg back in with that reference. Do you have anything like that for Watson also? Thank you. 69.23.115.197 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

Current discussions from Novemeber were kept, all previous discussions have been archived as per archive box on top. The old archive has been reassigned to Archive 1 in accordance with Wikipedia Archival procedure. A list of rejected people can be found at here. Mkdwtalk 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ref for Arthur C. Clark

It seems to say the author is one Jeromy Agel in the reference down there, was this ref just not formatted correctly, was that really Clark's words? Homestarmy 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Carolla

from http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/10/adam-with-jeff-probst-and-louis-ck/

Adam thinks that, even though he’s an atheist, we need to flood hell with all of the cool people because then hell won’t be such a bad place. Rachel says that she’s moving on to her next existence in her next life

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Carolla#Adam_on_Atheism --Philo 06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I nominate Ann Druyan who won the Richard Dawkins Award in 2004. --Philo 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertrand Russell

I removed Bertrand Russell from the list. He said the following:As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. He would only have called himself an atheist at popular audiance, because they don´t understand agnosticicm and the philosophical connections of it.--Peter Holgan 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The key point is that he considered himself both an agnostic and an atheist, depending on the context. That why he's in both List of atheists and List of agnostics, where his entry is accompanied by this quote, which clarifies this nuanced self-identification. Nick Graves 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Buffett

Warren Buffet has described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Two sources which confirm this are:

1. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

2. http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649&PHPSESSID=71cdf024ed00bc1cfeaa7092bb2e05e5

If there are no objections, I shall probably remove Warren Buffett from this list within the next week or so, and also update the related entries in the 'American atheists' lists and the 'Warren Buffett' article.

I will remove Buffett to the List of agnostics right now. Thanks. Nick Graves 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing

Logologist suggested that all of these names be rearranged alphabetically or chronologically, rather than by occupation. I support rearranging alphabetically, since it will make it much easier to manage the list and avoid duplication. What does everyone else think? Nick Graves 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've created confusion. My point was that some additions within the occupation lists have been out of alphabetical order. However we do sort our certified atheists, we probably should be consistent. I would keep the occupational divisions but, within each, put the individuals into chronological order by year of birth, rather than alphabetically. (The individuals are not all contemporary with each other; they span a couple of centuries of history.) logologist|Talk 06:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've viewed a fair few featured lists and some are alphabetic only (e.g. List of Telecaster players), others alphabetic within occupation (e.g. List of notable brain tumor patients, List of HIV-positive people), others chonological within occupation (e.g. List of people with epilepsy), and others chronological only (e.g. List of major opera composers) - and some in tables, some not! The upshot is that while I've seen more alpha-within-occupation, there is bugger-all standard. What I can say after reviewing these other lists is that I don't think any are better organised or more attractive than this one. I support remaining with the occupational division (not out of bloody-mindedness after the battle had earlier but because I think it's a better to have such an abmittedly imperfect breakdown than none at all) and don't see an issue with retaining the alphabetic order within occupation. I'm not against chronological order by birthdate within occupation per se, however I think a list is simpler to follow and add to if its left-most element is what you sort by - and since all lists of people start with their name I think it makes more sense to sort by that. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I rather dislike the lists not ordered by ocupation; in fact, I'm considering giving the list of anarchists the same treatment this one has had, although it would be a lot of work. I personally would favour chronological organisation within the occupations - it was different being an atheist 150 years ago than it was 50 years ago, and it's different again now. -Switch t 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what Logologist meant now. The names were supposed to be arranged in alphabetical order within occupation, but Logologist found some that weren't. That's to be expected, as "drive-by" additions are often made at the end of a section, rather than in proper alphabetical order (We might have missed some earlier, too.). Since a lot of such additions are made without a citation, one easy way to deal with them is to just revert them as soon as they pop up. A good reference for each entry is essential if this is to get to featured list quality. I oppose rearranging chronologically, not because it wouldn't be nice, but because it will make managing the list more difficult. It's just a lot easier to shoe-horn someone in by their last name than by birthdate or deathdate. Arranging by occupation can create some problems, because so many people are more than one thing (a comedian can be an author, an author can be an activist, etc.) and a reader might not find someone listed where they expect. However, I'd just as soon see the list organized as it is now (assuming it's still in alphabetical order within occupation). Nick Graves 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Taken care of (for now)! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Since the conversion of all pics from 100px to 75px a couple of captions, i.e. Rimsky-Korsakov and Skłodowska-Curie, have been truncated. Suggest we go back to something closer to 100px across the board, I doubt the slightly greater size will have a huge ripple effect. Also we have too many 'Science and medicine' pics, my vote is we drop two of Feynman, Pinker or Watson, i.e. suggest Dawkins, Curie, Pauling and one other should stay. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep all the Nobel laureates. logologist|Talk 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

From all his writings it's clear he doesn't believe in god; this is most apparent in Billions and Billions. Also, his wife, Ann Druyan, says this about him: "When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions" http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html Profonikz 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One can be a nonbeliever and not an atheist. Did Sagan ever specifically call himself an atheist? Has an informed and impartial source called him an atheist? That's what's needed. Nick Graves 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible additions

Frank Zappa and Bill Hicks were almost certainly atheists, but I can't find anything to 'prove' this, other than a bunch of anti-religious quotes, which might not qualify. I think they should be included though, can anyone help out? 203.167.235.136 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they were both atheists. Hicks might have some evidence for him - I'll have a look - but I doubt if any solid evidence for Zappa being an atheist could be found. Anti-religious quotes do not count, as many people, including pantheists, some agnostics, and deists might be derisive of organised religion or dogma, but without being atheists. -Switch t 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_atheists_aaf1.html"