Talk:American Atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Atheists article.
Article policies
WikiProject Atheism
American Atheists is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →

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)

[edit] Jon and Robin who?

No mention is made of Jon and Robin before the statement that they disappeared in the article. Who are they? blahpers 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon is Madalyn's son (by a different husband than William's father). Robin is William's daughter and thus Madalyn's grand-daughter, and most of her later childhood, she actually was raised by Madalyn. (My source is William's book "My Life Without God." A Christian I met my first year in college asked me if I would read the book, and I did. I gave it a try and it actually turned out to be kind of okay. Now, a straight-forward narrative of someone who has lived an interesting life, and who lets their voice come through in the writing, you can't go too far wrong.) FriendlyRiverOtter 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting both Madalyn and William some slack

People change. That’s okay. Just like someone raised in a religious family might become an atheist, someone raised in a nonreligious family might get religion. That’s okay, that should be accepted. From William’s book, he really did struggle with a drinking problem, and he also had unhappy relationships. What he didn’t talk about, and which later struck me as significant, was that the 1970s was a flat period economically (significant downturns at the very least in ’73 and ’75). So, many talented young people with a lot to offer, may have struggled to get jobs, and may have blamed themselves for lack of success. And this can make other areas of your life more difficult. And plus, although we might look at these kinds of reasons, what religion means to him intellectually, and in the heart, should not be discounted. If we’re really to have a conversation, we must strive to really listen, even if it seems like we’re heard it all before, and that’s the hardest part (or be willing to make such effort for someone we really care about).

Madalyn was pretty hardcore ideologically. I don’t know if I would have liked to live with her. Even if he was rebelling, that’s okay. It sounds like she may not have been with him at times he needed her. Or she took too much just the intellectual aspect of life, to the exclusion of the emotional aspect and everything else.

(For parents who don’t think much of religion, I think a good way is to kind of innoculate your kids. Go with them to visit a variety of churches, and even mosques, synagogues, and Buddhist temples. You might even tell them, ‘Some people believe these stories are really true, other people believe they’re made up . . .’) FriendlyRiverOtter 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages exist for discussing changes to their associated articles, not as a general forum for comments about the articles' subjects. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to consider that we may be hindered by misplaced formality. How could Madalyn disown her son, and in such a harsh, public way at that? The article doesn’t discuss this at all. It just kind of clunks it down there. And then it clunks off to another topic. And our article is not bad, ours is a thoroughly average wikipedia article. So, the problem is kind of the wikipedia context. Instead of viewing the rules as guidelines in service of clear communication, we seem to take them much too literally.
If a half dozen of us were talking in any kind of casual context, say on vacation taking a long afternoon walk along the beach, or on a work project and then having a fun pot luck evening and a movie night at someone’s house, we could really have a discussion. And I think we could really hash out the topic and make some progress. Gee, did Madalyn and her son really have some history? Or, maybe it’s an example of someone making great humanistic statements in public and then treating their family like shit, and there’s a lot of examples of that!
A good movie with a good screenplay is taking the human storytelling ability and making it even better, the conventions of the art are working in our favor. The same is true for a good documentary. But in wikipedia, the conventions seem to working against us. We need to tell the human story, and we are letting things stand in the way, we are letting things clutter the process.
I like the concept of narrative arc. Once you look at a bunch of facts, you find the narrative arc and you tell it in natural storytelling fashion. Someone else might find a different narrative arc and tell it in a different section. That’s fine, that will make for a richer article. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist "believes"?

GeorgeC editing this page back on 10:16, 1 March 2006 and added text:

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows: An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist thinks that heaven is something for which we should work for now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, subdue and enjoy it. An atheist thinks that only in knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to 'know' a god. An atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He knows that we are our brothers' keepers in that we are, first, keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

This doesn't jive with what is on the American Atheist web site. It's similar but not quite. You'll find the word "belief" and a lot of the word "believes" in this version but not found in GeorgeC's version:

(from http://www.atheists.org/Atheism)

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it. An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

This needs to be cited in light of the differences. Is there a court doc to cite?

GeorgeC's or American Atheists web site? G Goldring 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)