Talk:Madalyn Murray O'Hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madalyn Murray O'Hair article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Ohio Portal

Madalyn Murray O'Hair is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Comments: ^{edit · history · watch · purge}
The article says: "Withers, the Murray-O'Hairs' legal inquisitor,". What is a legal inquisitor? I have been a lawyer in Texas for 20 years and there is no such thing here. Is that a British term? I seriously doubt that Withers was her "legal inquisitor" as that is just not possible in Texas. Her attorney? Her executor? Something like that maybe, but not legal inquisitor.

[edit] Updates Required

This article is quite out of date though extensive, and could do with a little sanitisation as well. There is now also far more follow-up information available about the O'Hairs' murders and murderers. The esteem Madalyn is held in still today, in spite of (or somewhat because of) her outspokenness, by the American Atheists and atheists worldwide, needs to be mentioned - as does the fact she was somewhat ahead of her time in recognising the psychological dangers of religion. 218.214.138.11 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of view

uh, this seems a little POV: "It should also be noted that O'Hair was extremely abusive and abrasive towards just about everyone."

This is a generalization and not NPOV at all. Despite the fact that she may have been very "violent" in debates, this sentences portrays the picture of a woman who walks into convenience stores and breaks old ladies' bones. Should we remove it? Lockeownzj00 21:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be toned down if not altogether removed. -Sean Curtin 00:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about it if it is mentioned by enough reputable sources. Hi There 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, number of sources does not equal degree of impartiality. 218.214.138.11 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I too came across this article while researching something else and found it to be on the pov side. I'd suggest moving the attempt to attain Soviet citizenship to the criticism section as the citation is to an article that is on the pov side and cites her son William (clearly opposed to his mother) as the source. Focomoso 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously negative article about this person. As a founder of the American Atheists, presumably there are numerous positive actions she performed. Unfortunately, I am not familliar with her so I cannot make any changes myself, but this article just leaves me with the impression that it was written by people who hate her, and everything she stands for. The weaved quotes by her son are pointless, and seem derivative, for example. (Why not just say he converted and became estranged -- the other details are just relay of his testimony and opinions.) Qed 06:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry but I have to agree with the above comment, even if the effect of the article is unintentional it is still overburdened with negative bias. The basic thing is that O'Hair did not accept religion as tolerable, safe or healthy in any respect (something I heartily agree with), and set out to say so. Many seem unable to cope with this, but as religion slowly dies out, more voices like hers are indeed being heard nowadays - and she was speaking in the stoneage of the 60's. 218.214.138.11 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i have to agree too. madalyn was abrasive but was good p.r. for american atheists. madalyn made the point that her lawsuit should not have been combined with abington because she included in her argument that prayer was worthless and a waste of time! she also once said about her estranged son's rebirth that "he's still an atheist, he's just tired of being poor." too bad i don't have any sources :-( DyNama 01:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCC petition

The phrase: "It cites a petition to the FCC, which in real life was denied in 1975." is somewhat ambigious. Does it mean that the FCC denied the petition, or denied that there WAS a petition? Assuming it is the latter, I have changed this sentince to: "It cites a petition to the FCC, which in 1975 the FCC denied having received.". If it is supposed to mean the former, I would suggest changing it to: "It cites a petition to the FCC, which was denied by the FCC in 1975." - Peter Darley

It means the former. When a petition is denied it means it was turned down. The correct phraseology for the second case would be "a petition, whose existence was denied...". DJ Clayworth 06:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atheistic fundamentalists

Clearly they are roaming Wiki to try and detheisthize anything that dares to stand in their way. This is pathetic. It is like a tribute to this woman or something. Free thinkers my fucking ass, Chomsky hates you all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.228.8 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2005.

This is illustrative of the damage she did. He name is so conjoined with naturalist thought (atheism). Wyss 18:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that as a child she wanted to kill her father, and that she was a psycho bitch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piemanmoo (talk • contribs) 20 October 2005.

It should furthermore be noted that such statements as "psycho bitch" need to be supported with evidence, and use NPOV language. Thank you.--droptone 02:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

An illustration of how bizarre life can become on Wikipedia. I wrote quite a lot of this article. I'm certainly not an 'atheist fundamentalist' and I personally think she is loathsome. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also a substantial contributor to this article and have a naturalistic worldview. I also tend to think of her as loathsome and feel she did extensive damage to secularism and rational thought during her lifetime. She was angry, shrill and vindictive, hardly a helpful spokesperson or advocate for those with a scientific outlook on the cosmos. Wyss 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of stating your biases here. I am myself a Christian who appreciates the intellectual merits of O'Hair's views but nevertheless I try to stick to Wikipedia guidelines. Your opinions only go to show that your contributions may have a penchant against the five pillars of Wikipedia. Welch10 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My point of stating my personal view here was to illustrate to the original poster that his assumptions about 'atheist fundamentialists' was entirely wrong, and that it is actually possible to write an article without giving vent to your biases. I doubt it made much impact, but sometimes you've gotta try. (I've still no idea what I've done to upset Noam Chomsky though) DJ Clayworth 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repudiates her son: Cite?

From the article --

Murray called her son's conversion "unforgivable," and spoke of symbolically murdering him for what she viewed as a transgression against her: "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."

Does anyone have a cite for this rather strong statement?? - 6 december 2005

It sounds so much like her that I've left it in, though it should be cited. Wyss 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it [1] and added it to the article. Wyss 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think rotten.com counts as a valid citation source. It basicly recycles anything it finds on the internet with no checking. DJ Clayworth 23:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a citation from a valid source: http://crimemagazine.com/ohair.htm Hi There 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation and source have now been integrated into the body of the article.Hi There 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"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" Best quote ever!

Yeah, that ignorant quote pretty much sums her up, huh? Like there are no religiously affiliated hospitals. 72.144.198.53 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it sound like religion exclusively relies on prayer. Building a hospital is rather pointless if people still lack the means to go in and receive treatment, isn't it? Last I checked, churches were all free, and treating the body is pointless if the soul burns in hell. Body, Spirit, Soul. All three are equally important aspects of humans.

"God helps those who help themselves." --Look, a better quote, and that's not even what's in the Bible!

You're sick religious, guys. You're so weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.51.71 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wyss

I just want to state that numerous edits by the following user introduce bad references, NPOV langauge. This article needs a lot of cleaning-up. It only needs to state facts, legitimate references. True, it is called an article but it has to be objective.

I removed something that said that Christians believe atheists are 'by definition' immoral. That is certainly not the case. It is true that a popular Christian position is that atheists are 'without moral foundation' - i.e. though they may act morally, they have no philosophical basis for doing so. Obviously atheists may dispute this, but that's not a discussion to have here. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlooked Sources?

I came here after reading an article an article here: http://crimemagazine.com/ohair.htm which also referenced a webpage by Murray-O'hair's son, here: http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp?action=detail&article=144 where he writes as follows: "My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company." (That is a straight copy-and-paste and the ellipses are in the original.) Some of this stuff really ought to be incorporated into the article, I think. The original Crime Magazine aarticle - which in keeping with Crime Magazine's standards is quite good - lists various sources for its story besides William O'hair and are worth looking into. Also see here: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue19/pols.naked.html for a few excerpts from her diary, including the following: "A 90-minute forage through the documents reveals a woman obsessed with money and power. On Jan. 6, 1973, O'Hair wrote her goals for the new year: "Begin a Bible chair at U. of Texas. Get a mink coat and a Cadillac car. Humiliate Billy Graham, for money." Again in December of 1975, after reviewing the poor state of her financial affairs, she wrote, "And where are your dreams Madalyn. I need money and power. One is synonymous with another. I need numbers and money. One gets the other. How to break into the circle?" And there's a deep-seated bitterness, as well. More than 40 years ago, long before she dashed into the media spotlight carrying the banner of atheism, O'Hair wrote about her passion for discord: "What is the matter with hating?" she wrote on Oct. 9, 1956. "It is treated as a leper among the emotions. Why in the hell should we go exuding sweetness & light?" Hi There 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

She really was a disgusting person, no wonder Atheists idolize her as their God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)

I don't think Wikipedia is the place for the constant spouting of bigoted hatred for atheists, though. Make sure to sign your comments. Star Ghost 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Founding of American Atheists And Later

I have changed the title of the section "American Atheists" to "The Founding of American Atheists And Later" as the the original title did not accurately what was contained in the section.Hi There 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted Defection to the Soviet Union

I know that this will prove controversial but it comes from a good source; from TWO good sources in fact. The original quote is a book from a very reputable publisher - Viking - and it was cited in an article which, although very much anti-O'hair, was written by a fellow atheist.Hi There 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little doubtful about this. One article referencing another book is pretty poor referencing. It may be true but I'd be happier if it were better backed up. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Found another reference [2]. Happier now. DJ Clayworth 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First rate! Thank you for finding that reference! Hi There 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Paragraph Concerning The Fate Of The Extorted Gold Coins

It seems that the paragraph has been removed, but there is no explanation here regarding the reasons for it, so I have taken the liberty of restoring it. Although I understand that the fate of the coins is not an important matter in O'hair's biography, it is still nonetheless an bizarre occurence that really does deserve to be mentioned. If someone wants to note their reasons for the excision, I will be more than glad to discuss it further. Hi There 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "not an important matter in O'hair's biography" covers it nicely. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is not but there are biographical pages with "trivia" or "anecdote" sections with interesting yet not terribly important facts (and fables too;) the fate of the gold coins falls in that category of fact. It is such a bizarre occurence that it merits some mention. As the whole point of the extortion plot was to get those gold coins, a reader would be justified in thinking that Waters & Co had gotten them, unless told otherwise. And discussing the fate of the coins is not necessarily all that different from discussing the fate of David Waters, really.Hi There 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Atheistic fundamentalists

The hateful and ignorant comments left here by people who did not even know Madalyn O'Hair, or her family, only serve to illustrate the difference between people guided by reason and those who are not. I knew her well, had the pleasure of working with her for a number of years, loved her -- she presided at my wife's and my wedding -- and I enjoyed her wonderful humor and down to earth personality. The same goes for her adoptive (read abandoned) daughter Robin, who was a gem. Also, Madalyn did not invent atheism or atheist activism -- it has a rich history stretching back even to Demokritus "the laughing atheist." However, she was the first person to give atheists the courage to come out of their "closets" in large numbers and there would be no turning back, despite the sad, stupid, and occassionally violent bigotry of some religionists. This entry does not do justice to her -- for instance, ignoring the impact of her landmark book "Freedom Under Siege" -- nor is it an accurate (leaving out that she earned a JD degree from South Texas College of Law) or well-balanced portrait, in general, relying heavily upon unsubstantiable rumors, specious sources (like Bill Murray, a man who abandoned his young family to poverty, and who showed up drunk and armed outside the Pacifica radio station I volunteered at in Houston, demanding that we "send out the bitch so I can kill her!"), and sordid police gazette table scraps. All the talk about the socked away millions is such a joke, as both the family and the organization scraped by for many years on a trickle of donations. Madalyn lived in a modest home, had a proletarian wardrobe, ate at taco joints, and adopted abandoned animals, yet she was generous. If the money existed, she certainly wasn't showering on herself. Repeating ugly slander only makes one person look bad - the writer. --J-no 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is information missing from this biography, and you can cite sources, then feel free to add whatever you think is missing. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Writer

I'm using this article as a reference for a paper I'm writing and I can't figure out who wrote the original article. Can someone help me out? 63.245.255.27 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this, or any Wikipedia article, can meaningfully be spoken-of as having an author. They all are community efforts - this one, perhaps, especially so. For what it's worth (effectively nothing), a perusal of the article history page,[[3]] if I read it right, reveals that the first entry was by Wyss [[4]] , who is not otherwise identified.

I'm not sure how one might cite a Wikipedia article (although there's probably information somewhere on the site), so I'd use standard format for web pages (not forgetting to include the date and time the page was accessed - especially important for Wikipedia articles). --Deaconse 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References need fixing

Several citation references need fixing to use the <ref> .... </ref> tag method. DFH 12:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend/urban legend

I changed the "legend" heading to "urban legend" as it seemed a lot more appropriate to me, but when looking back at the history I see that it was "urban legend" originally and that someone had changed it to "legend". Does anyone have any idea why? Esn 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal commentary

I removed this paragraph of personal commentary, since Wikipedia has a rule against original research.

I will put it here so that if it turns out that it was just an improperly formatted quote from a third-party source, it can easily be restored:

O'Hair, like many others, had to steel herself for conflict. Consequently she was often perceived in the worst possible light because of her combative stances and actions. The idea that she hated Christians is belied by her conduct on April 19, 1994. As I walked past her office, she called my name in a croak that was hardly recognizable. I entered her office where she sat behind her desk. She pointed toward the television that was opposite her. I saw the then-familiar shape of the Branch Davidian compound engulfed in flames. Incredulous, I asked if that was the compound. She could not speak, but nodded to indicate that it was. I stood with her and watched the unfolding horror while she sat and silently wept for the dying Christians.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristinaDunigan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).ChristinaDunigan 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

I noticed that the caption and the first sentence do not agree with each other. Which (if either) is correct? Rklawton 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

An anonymous editor recently added a long paragraph to the criticism section. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it may be a bit of a problem that the criticism section is becoming as long as the actual article, so I'd like to ask this: Who exactly is Jane Kathryn Conrad, and why should someone care that she published a critical pamphlet which contains (from what I can see) a number of unproven allegations? Is her name mentioned in a news article somewhere as one of O'Hair's top critics? Esn 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point... deleting until such time as someone can give a solid reason why anyone should care what that person thinks. DreamGuy 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Biography Rating

Due to a backlog it is no longer possible to give comment on ratings. Please put any comments/questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ULC

Poor Richard's was a charter church of the ULC. It is mentioned in both the book Modesto Messiah and on page 148 of the book The Atheist: Madalyn Murray O'Hair ISBN-10: 0814751725. cited with 2 sources. Any objections to re-adding the catagory? JDBlues 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Denies Being Victim of Violence?

From the article" (William later publicly stated that her claims of his being a victim of violence were fraudulent; see below.)"

I can't find the "below" do we want to put it in or take out the reference or do I just need to learn to read?LittleBrother 06:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

see the "Critism section, second paragraph and related references. JDBlues 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray's Writings

Just glancing in, but wondered where mention of Murray's writings were. The bibliography didn't have any. Didn't she write any books? And surely she wrote essays. Also, I didn't notice any mention of Paul Krassner's magazine, which made a big thing of Murray. The Realist, I think it was called. Krassner's view of her would be interesting, I think.

````a long-ago fan of Madalyn's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.250.163 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is very POV

I cleaned up some POV issues and removed a claim cited to a Geocities.com website. Since the 1960s years Christian groups claimed she was stealing money, but that does mean they were correct. In fact, detectives thought Waters bought into the myth, which is why he killed her. Lets use sources and let them do the talking. TYie34 (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still not NPOV

There are some snippets here and there that really don't sit well with me, but the following paragraph is quite blatantly not suitable for Wikipedia: "O'Hair remained a polarizing figure into the 1980s. She served as "chief speechwriter" for Larry Flynt's 1984 presidential campaign, and continued to be a regular talk show guest.[2] American Atheists did a brisk business selling anti-religious books and trinkets, and she enjoyed some financial success as the group's CEO. However, her callous and unfeeling personality caused her to go through employees and "friends" like a hot knife through butter. O'Hair would flatter and coax someone into working for American Atheists or one of its satellite groups, then start to severely criticize him/her for petty reasons, then cut into his/her character viciously and publicly. Ultimately, O'Hair alienated almost every person with whom she came into contact, and failed to give her son Garth any set of social skills or ability to deal with people. The belligerence of the mother and son forced American Atheist chapters to secede from the main group, and by 1991 all local/state chapters were dissolved." I dislike Madalyn O'Hair as much as the next guy, but come on...Metalrobot (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a bunch of changes; hopefully it's better now. If not, go ahead and put the NPOV warning back, and it can be dissected a bit more. 69.221.158.99 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradict

This article says the group dwindled to nothing in 1991, yet the American Atheists article says it is current and named a new president in 1995. If anyone can find a source that explains the group's status in the early 90s, please add it. 69.221.158.99 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Mr. Murray

The article states, "[i]n 1945, while posted to a cryptography position in Italy, she began an affair with an officer, William J. Murray, Jr. Murray was a married Roman Catholic, and he refused to divorce his wife."

By stating Mr. Murray "refused to divorce his wife," the article implies that whether Murray obtained a divorce was entirely up to him. It must be remembered that, in 1945, there was no no-fault divorce. On the facts presented, Murray's wife could have divorced him for adultery, but he had no ability to divorce his wife, at least not without her consent.

130.13.4.45 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.45 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this criticism to be the kind of thing that only people who weren't around in those times can assume. The way people tend to assume that Victorians hardly had any sex. There is a difference between the so-called rules and what happens on the ground, particularly in Roman Catholic culture, but even in supposedly inescapable codes like the law. Just because technically he shouldn't be granted a divorce, doesn't mean he wouldn't, if he would try. If he wouldn't even go to a priest to discuss it, she had every reason to be disappointed, IMO. In any case, I strongly disagree with any wikipedia articles being edited on the assumption that Roman Catholicism is a functioning, self-consistent organisation, and that any fact that might imply otherwise should be removed. It would be like saying, 'How could she have been angry at him for not being industrious enough, when everyone is aware that it ain't what you know it's who you know.' Okay, maybe true, but not even close to the point.--99.234.69.225 (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

	Madalyn Murray O'Hair is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.