![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Nick Graves, I respectfully ask you revert you recent page moves. Where is the consensus for the moves? There are ongoing discussions about this list in several venues, and I have seen no consensus for this move. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the second time these lists have been renamed without consensus. The first time was about 6 months ago: renamed to "List of nontheists". And yesterday to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". These kinds of major changes need lengthy deliberation with strong consensus. My opinion on the renames is "No", for several reasons: (1) Atheism is a very, very significant belief system; (2) Atheism is different from agnosticism; and (3) these atheism lists have always had the rule that persons could only be included if they were atheists (not agnostics). Granted, some definitions of atheism overlap with some definitions of agnosticism, but that fuzziness is no reason for us in WP to unilaterally combine the two concepts (which would just exacerbate the fuzziness, not clarify it). Furthermore, there is List of agnostics and we would need to reconcile the duplication. I find the BLP arguments very disingenuous. The editor using that argument is a strong proponent of the term "nontheism" and may be using the BLP argument to promote the term "nontheism" over atheism. The reason BLP is a non issue is that atheism is defined as "lack of belief in god(s)", so if a person says "I dont believe in God" that is sufficient to make them an atheist. There is no reason to require the precise wording "I am an atheist" bed', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, as opposed to what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in ordcause WP policy is to use the plain meaning of words. Also, the source can be a biographer or interviewer, in addition to the person themself. Please, no more renaming. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record; my bad for continuing the discussion on "what atheism are we talking about" in a comment which was supposed to conclude "one thing we shouldn't be discussing is what atheism is"....
Facepalm FOr the record I agree with everything Griswaldo is saying about this article (apart from, I might be more lenient about historical figures) --
Errant [tmorton166] (
chat!)
14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It'd be mighty useful if someone could spell it out, and maybe we could tweak it and not-vote on it. The consensus of recent discussion, such as it is, hasn't given much clarity, and already there's disagreement over who's in and who's out (Kevin Bacon, for example). Nick Graves ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
This subject is now being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of the very confusing interpretations of what should be in these lists, I propose to restore the name that an editor supplied a couple of months ago: "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". Ditto for the various sublists. This has several benefits:
Comments? -- Noleander ( talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
Smart, J.C.C. (2004) “Atheism and Agnosticism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. An outdated and idiosyncratic survey of the topic. Heavily influenced by positivism from the early 20th century.
Comment: I'm with Oolon. It was nothing short of tragic when "List of nontheists" was overthrown.
The word " nontheism" can hardly now be called a neologism, being over a century and a half old.
Certainly, at the very least, a unitary list, welcoming all brands of nontheists, is desirable. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: As far as nontheist (or non-theist) being too... unusual? … to use, I checked my old-ish (7th edition, from about 1988 I think) Chambers English Dictionary (which I like as it's a slightly lower-level source than the OED, which (to me) suggests if something's in it, it's more mainstream -- the OED is the ultimate, but it's a bit 'everything and the kitchen sink'). No entry for non(-)theist of course, but:
Seems perfectly sensible. Sure, it's common sense; but I'd be interested to hear how applying such a bog-standard prefix could even constitute a neologism. Any English speaker will understand it (or should that be only non- English speakers wouldn't?), because both parts of the compound are themselves mainstream. Would there be any problem having a List of ex-Catholics? (Yeah yeah, probably, because you could use 'former', but you get the point I hope. If for some, erm, god-forsaken, reason one wanted to list people who are not Catholics, what the blazes could you call them other than 'non-Catholics'? That wouldn't be a neologism, it'd be common sense use of English, readily understood by all but those who'd need to look up 'non-' in the first place. In effect, it's just applying an adjective.)
I suppose 'List of people who are/were not theists' would work, but it's still cumbersome compared with just using a common prefix in its normal way.
As for there not being overlap between atheist and agnostic, well there may often not be, in terms of what label gets applied or how people view themselves or what term they prefer or whatever, but it's a simple fact nevertheless: (a)theist is about belief, agnostic is about the reason(s) for that belief. An agnostic may not be sure if there is, but surely they either believe or they don't? Dawkins absolutely should be listed under agnostics, because he himself says that's what he is. But who'd put him there, rather than under atheists?
The problem I have with deliberately including the word 'agnostics' in the title is, well, read Agnostic theism. How would we keep those agnostics out? (Assuming we'd want to -- which might be sensible given that a far shorter list would then be of people who're certain in their belief!) (A parallel list of agnostic theists might be interesting and useful in its own right, however.) 'List of atheists and belief-less (non-believing? ;-) ) agnostics' strikes me as a bit daft. Whichever way you look at it, we're just messing around with more or less convoluted ways of saying 'non-theists'.
If 'non-theist' could be a suitable (compound-) word in itself, I can see nothing in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA that suggests it as less than the best thing to use:
Note too: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there will be a simple and obvious title that will meet these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others." I'd suggest that 'List of non-theists' is the obvious choice, and it can be favoured over the potentially more obvious 'atheists', 'agnostics', or 'atheists, agnostics and other non-believers' (etc) for its conciseness, recognisability and above all, its unambiguous precision.
And we can reject the argument based on "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" simply by pointing out that this is not a list of atheists or agnostics (note: not all, only the non-believing ones) or antitheists or skeptics or infidels or scientific rationalists or 'not religious' or godless heathens. It's all of those, a natural category united by lack of belief. Is there a term most typically used in reliable sources for that inclusive group? If so, for god's sake let's use that! If there is, I wonder at all the fuss (and the lacuna in my own vocabulary). But I can't see anything that fits here.
Actually, there is a term for these people: 'weak' atheists. ('Strong' atheists are automatically 'weak' ones too, of course.) But I think that fails miserably in terms of recognisability and naturalness; nor is it unmbiguous (does it exclude those who do assert god(s)'s non-existence?); and it includes the problematic word 'atheist'.
If there's anything unclear about 'non-theist', there's nothing to stop us clarifying, saying in the intro something like "This is a list of people who do not or did not believe in god(s). Such people are often referred to as atheists, agnostics etc, and the references indicate which shade of non-belief applies in each case."
As for the footnote thing: yes, I agree. The quotes should be tied more tightly to the entries. Let the reasons for inclusion speak for themselves. It bothers me that so much good info in the refs is only seen by those who follow each one, rather than being on display: not merely justifying their inclusion but as information about the person's precise views on the matter. The best way so far proposed is I think the table we had at one point. Not sure if it's still around, but here is a snippet from what I still have in my sandbox:
Name | Dates | Known as / for | Who | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
João Cabral de Melo Neto | 1920–1999 | Author | Brazilian poet, considered one of the greatest Brazilian poets of all time. | "Though an atheist, Cabral had a deep, atavistic fear of the devil. When his wife died in 1986, he placed an emblem of Our Lady of Carmen around her neck, saying, in his mocking way, that this would make sure that she went directly to heaven, without being stopped at customs." [1] |
Peter Caffrey | 1949–2008 | Actor | Irish actor, best known for playing Padraig O'Kelly in Series 1-4 of Ballykissangel. | "Born in Dublin in 1949, Caffrey enjoyed acting in school plays but subsequently went to a seminary for two years with a view to becoming a priest (he later played one in Coronation Street). He came out an atheist and studied English at University College, Dublin, before teaching at a primary school for a year." [2] |
Simon Callow | 1949– | Actor | British (English) stage, film and television actor, and author. | "Was it then a very religious upbringing? "First of all, they were continental Catholics, not Irish Catholics, and that makes a big difference," he replies. "It was much more sophisticated, to do with having the priest round for drinks and telling a few saucy jokes. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we confess. But in terms of attendance at church, and the whole immersion in the language and imagery of religion, yes, very much. I was very religiously inclined. I wanted to be a priest." Do you still have faith? "No," he guffaws. "But I still have hope!"" Peter Ross interviewing Callow, 'The Lost Boy', The Sunday Herald, 30 April 2006, Magazine, Pg. 8. |
But that of course is an extremely labour-intensive thing to produce from what we already have. I can do some of it, but it would need others to bash away at it too.
How about, perhaps as a temporary measure, moving the 'ref' tags so that the quotes are included in the list, with just the links in the references section? That should be easier to do, and produces only more of an aesthetic problem, where the quote is long.
So this:
would become
References
How about that? Then we could work on the table format in… wherever one puts works in progress. Thoughts? Oolon ( talk) 11:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Ref "The only way the current lists could be merged"... Ah. I wasn't aware that the proposal was to simply, blindly, merge the lists under an appropriate title, with the agnostics imported en masse regardless of their beliefs. If the idea is a wholesale merger, I strongly oppose.
I thought the proposal was to rename the 'List of atheists' to 'List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists' such that it made workable sense at last: the loose, 'weak atheism' definition, synonymous with simple lack of belief, 'non-theism' -- a list of people who are not theists. Does so-and-so believe in gods? Yes / no, black or white, in or out, sorted. No more crap about whether (eg) Sagan was atheisty enough. No more editors who use the (correct) disbelief definition adding someone only to be shouted down by others who use the (correct) existence-denial definition. No more "I don't believe in god" barred as insufficient but "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god" a shoo-in. No more "God's about as plausible as Mother Goose and I don't believe in either, so I'm an agnostic" being rejected. All that bollocks. In short, no more crap about whether someone is an "atheist", whether that jelly word can be or was correctly nailed to them. Just a list of people who don't believe in god(s). (Which would be identical to a list of atheists sensu lato anyway of course, that's kinda the point, you have to use the wider definition for a list because some sources use the wider definition and we can't tell if they, like, really mean it, so if you use a better word you needn't worry about the other word's usage, round and round and round we go...) Oolon ( talk) 09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
After a hiatus, I am surprised and a little pleased to come back and see that this proposal has been further discussed, with some progress, I think, in the right direction. Suggestion: It might help to start a fresh poll to get a better idea of the current consensus. In the meantime, some thoughts...
If we agree that this list ought to include people who do not believe in deities, then the current title is clearly inadequate, because we are compelled for BLP reasons to exclude people who hold that very position (even in the form of unequivocal denial of God's existence), yet do not identify themselves by the "magic word", or who specifically say that they are not atheists (either because they don't like the negative baggage, or they use a more restrictive sense of that word). In the interest of making this encyclopedia most informative and useful, the aforementioned inclusion criterion is desirable, since (as has been pointed out by multiple editors here) people wanting to research atheists are interested in those holding a certain position, not necessarily those who identify that position by a certain word.
Here are some possible names, along with what I see as some of their strengths and weaknesses:
For your consideration: List of atheists or nontheists - This includes all who disbelieve in gods, while retaining the most common name for this position. Because of the "or", it does not take a position on whether atheist = nontheist, or whether atheism is a subset of nontheism, thus retaining NPOV on that potentially divisive matter. The intro could say something to the effect that this list includes people who do not believe in God or gods, and that such people have been identified by the term atheist (broadly defined), or alternatively, nontheist.
Others' contributions to this discussion petered out over a month ago without a resolution. I hope this can be picked up again, discussed well, and resolved (hopefully for a good long time). Nick Graves ( talk) 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please offer your view on an Rfc here to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list. Killer Chihuahua 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Nick Graves, I respectfully ask you revert you recent page moves. Where is the consensus for the moves? There are ongoing discussions about this list in several venues, and I have seen no consensus for this move. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the second time these lists have been renamed without consensus. The first time was about 6 months ago: renamed to "List of nontheists". And yesterday to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". These kinds of major changes need lengthy deliberation with strong consensus. My opinion on the renames is "No", for several reasons: (1) Atheism is a very, very significant belief system; (2) Atheism is different from agnosticism; and (3) these atheism lists have always had the rule that persons could only be included if they were atheists (not agnostics). Granted, some definitions of atheism overlap with some definitions of agnosticism, but that fuzziness is no reason for us in WP to unilaterally combine the two concepts (which would just exacerbate the fuzziness, not clarify it). Furthermore, there is List of agnostics and we would need to reconcile the duplication. I find the BLP arguments very disingenuous. The editor using that argument is a strong proponent of the term "nontheism" and may be using the BLP argument to promote the term "nontheism" over atheism. The reason BLP is a non issue is that atheism is defined as "lack of belief in god(s)", so if a person says "I dont believe in God" that is sufficient to make them an atheist. There is no reason to require the precise wording "I am an atheist" bed', because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception." However, those who are not atheists, or do not consider themselves atheists, have almost exclusively conceived of atheism in terms of disbelief/denial in/of gods. Today, many, if not most individuals who answer no to the question, "do you believe in god(s)", also distinguish their perspective from "atheism", because these individuals consider atheism a denial, or positive disbelief in gods, as opposed to what they have, which is more generally a lack of belief in gods. My understanding is that when atheists today push the "atheism is the lack of belief in gods" mantra they are doing one or both of two things - 1) taking the same old atheist philosophical stance that hinges upon a rationalist/materialist rejection of gods as a sensible idea, and therefore rejecting the very idea of rejecting gods and/or 2) making a contemporary appeal to softer notions of atheism in ordcause WP policy is to use the plain meaning of words. Also, the source can be a biographer or interviewer, in addition to the person themself. Please, no more renaming. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record; my bad for continuing the discussion on "what atheism are we talking about" in a comment which was supposed to conclude "one thing we shouldn't be discussing is what atheism is"....
Facepalm FOr the record I agree with everything Griswaldo is saying about this article (apart from, I might be more lenient about historical figures) --
Errant [tmorton166] (
chat!)
14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It'd be mighty useful if someone could spell it out, and maybe we could tweak it and not-vote on it. The consensus of recent discussion, such as it is, hasn't given much clarity, and already there's disagreement over who's in and who's out (Kevin Bacon, for example). Nick Graves ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
This subject is now being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of the very confusing interpretations of what should be in these lists, I propose to restore the name that an editor supplied a couple of months ago: "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". Ditto for the various sublists. This has several benefits:
Comments? -- Noleander ( talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.” So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
Smart, J.C.C. (2004) “Atheism and Agnosticism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. An outdated and idiosyncratic survey of the topic. Heavily influenced by positivism from the early 20th century.
Comment: I'm with Oolon. It was nothing short of tragic when "List of nontheists" was overthrown.
The word " nontheism" can hardly now be called a neologism, being over a century and a half old.
Certainly, at the very least, a unitary list, welcoming all brands of nontheists, is desirable. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: As far as nontheist (or non-theist) being too... unusual? … to use, I checked my old-ish (7th edition, from about 1988 I think) Chambers English Dictionary (which I like as it's a slightly lower-level source than the OED, which (to me) suggests if something's in it, it's more mainstream -- the OED is the ultimate, but it's a bit 'everything and the kitchen sink'). No entry for non(-)theist of course, but:
Seems perfectly sensible. Sure, it's common sense; but I'd be interested to hear how applying such a bog-standard prefix could even constitute a neologism. Any English speaker will understand it (or should that be only non- English speakers wouldn't?), because both parts of the compound are themselves mainstream. Would there be any problem having a List of ex-Catholics? (Yeah yeah, probably, because you could use 'former', but you get the point I hope. If for some, erm, god-forsaken, reason one wanted to list people who are not Catholics, what the blazes could you call them other than 'non-Catholics'? That wouldn't be a neologism, it'd be common sense use of English, readily understood by all but those who'd need to look up 'non-' in the first place. In effect, it's just applying an adjective.)
I suppose 'List of people who are/were not theists' would work, but it's still cumbersome compared with just using a common prefix in its normal way.
As for there not being overlap between atheist and agnostic, well there may often not be, in terms of what label gets applied or how people view themselves or what term they prefer or whatever, but it's a simple fact nevertheless: (a)theist is about belief, agnostic is about the reason(s) for that belief. An agnostic may not be sure if there is, but surely they either believe or they don't? Dawkins absolutely should be listed under agnostics, because he himself says that's what he is. But who'd put him there, rather than under atheists?
The problem I have with deliberately including the word 'agnostics' in the title is, well, read Agnostic theism. How would we keep those agnostics out? (Assuming we'd want to -- which might be sensible given that a far shorter list would then be of people who're certain in their belief!) (A parallel list of agnostic theists might be interesting and useful in its own right, however.) 'List of atheists and belief-less (non-believing? ;-) ) agnostics' strikes me as a bit daft. Whichever way you look at it, we're just messing around with more or less convoluted ways of saying 'non-theists'.
If 'non-theist' could be a suitable (compound-) word in itself, I can see nothing in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA that suggests it as less than the best thing to use:
Note too: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there will be a simple and obvious title that will meet these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others." I'd suggest that 'List of non-theists' is the obvious choice, and it can be favoured over the potentially more obvious 'atheists', 'agnostics', or 'atheists, agnostics and other non-believers' (etc) for its conciseness, recognisability and above all, its unambiguous precision.
And we can reject the argument based on "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" simply by pointing out that this is not a list of atheists or agnostics (note: not all, only the non-believing ones) or antitheists or skeptics or infidels or scientific rationalists or 'not religious' or godless heathens. It's all of those, a natural category united by lack of belief. Is there a term most typically used in reliable sources for that inclusive group? If so, for god's sake let's use that! If there is, I wonder at all the fuss (and the lacuna in my own vocabulary). But I can't see anything that fits here.
Actually, there is a term for these people: 'weak' atheists. ('Strong' atheists are automatically 'weak' ones too, of course.) But I think that fails miserably in terms of recognisability and naturalness; nor is it unmbiguous (does it exclude those who do assert god(s)'s non-existence?); and it includes the problematic word 'atheist'.
If there's anything unclear about 'non-theist', there's nothing to stop us clarifying, saying in the intro something like "This is a list of people who do not or did not believe in god(s). Such people are often referred to as atheists, agnostics etc, and the references indicate which shade of non-belief applies in each case."
As for the footnote thing: yes, I agree. The quotes should be tied more tightly to the entries. Let the reasons for inclusion speak for themselves. It bothers me that so much good info in the refs is only seen by those who follow each one, rather than being on display: not merely justifying their inclusion but as information about the person's precise views on the matter. The best way so far proposed is I think the table we had at one point. Not sure if it's still around, but here is a snippet from what I still have in my sandbox:
Name | Dates | Known as / for | Who | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
João Cabral de Melo Neto | 1920–1999 | Author | Brazilian poet, considered one of the greatest Brazilian poets of all time. | "Though an atheist, Cabral had a deep, atavistic fear of the devil. When his wife died in 1986, he placed an emblem of Our Lady of Carmen around her neck, saying, in his mocking way, that this would make sure that she went directly to heaven, without being stopped at customs." [1] |
Peter Caffrey | 1949–2008 | Actor | Irish actor, best known for playing Padraig O'Kelly in Series 1-4 of Ballykissangel. | "Born in Dublin in 1949, Caffrey enjoyed acting in school plays but subsequently went to a seminary for two years with a view to becoming a priest (he later played one in Coronation Street). He came out an atheist and studied English at University College, Dublin, before teaching at a primary school for a year." [2] |
Simon Callow | 1949– | Actor | British (English) stage, film and television actor, and author. | "Was it then a very religious upbringing? "First of all, they were continental Catholics, not Irish Catholics, and that makes a big difference," he replies. "It was much more sophisticated, to do with having the priest round for drinks and telling a few saucy jokes. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we confess. But in terms of attendance at church, and the whole immersion in the language and imagery of religion, yes, very much. I was very religiously inclined. I wanted to be a priest." Do you still have faith? "No," he guffaws. "But I still have hope!"" Peter Ross interviewing Callow, 'The Lost Boy', The Sunday Herald, 30 April 2006, Magazine, Pg. 8. |
But that of course is an extremely labour-intensive thing to produce from what we already have. I can do some of it, but it would need others to bash away at it too.
How about, perhaps as a temporary measure, moving the 'ref' tags so that the quotes are included in the list, with just the links in the references section? That should be easier to do, and produces only more of an aesthetic problem, where the quote is long.
So this:
would become
References
How about that? Then we could work on the table format in… wherever one puts works in progress. Thoughts? Oolon ( talk) 11:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Ref "The only way the current lists could be merged"... Ah. I wasn't aware that the proposal was to simply, blindly, merge the lists under an appropriate title, with the agnostics imported en masse regardless of their beliefs. If the idea is a wholesale merger, I strongly oppose.
I thought the proposal was to rename the 'List of atheists' to 'List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists' such that it made workable sense at last: the loose, 'weak atheism' definition, synonymous with simple lack of belief, 'non-theism' -- a list of people who are not theists. Does so-and-so believe in gods? Yes / no, black or white, in or out, sorted. No more crap about whether (eg) Sagan was atheisty enough. No more editors who use the (correct) disbelief definition adding someone only to be shouted down by others who use the (correct) existence-denial definition. No more "I don't believe in god" barred as insufficient but "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god" a shoo-in. No more "God's about as plausible as Mother Goose and I don't believe in either, so I'm an agnostic" being rejected. All that bollocks. In short, no more crap about whether someone is an "atheist", whether that jelly word can be or was correctly nailed to them. Just a list of people who don't believe in god(s). (Which would be identical to a list of atheists sensu lato anyway of course, that's kinda the point, you have to use the wider definition for a list because some sources use the wider definition and we can't tell if they, like, really mean it, so if you use a better word you needn't worry about the other word's usage, round and round and round we go...) Oolon ( talk) 09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
After a hiatus, I am surprised and a little pleased to come back and see that this proposal has been further discussed, with some progress, I think, in the right direction. Suggestion: It might help to start a fresh poll to get a better idea of the current consensus. In the meantime, some thoughts...
If we agree that this list ought to include people who do not believe in deities, then the current title is clearly inadequate, because we are compelled for BLP reasons to exclude people who hold that very position (even in the form of unequivocal denial of God's existence), yet do not identify themselves by the "magic word", or who specifically say that they are not atheists (either because they don't like the negative baggage, or they use a more restrictive sense of that word). In the interest of making this encyclopedia most informative and useful, the aforementioned inclusion criterion is desirable, since (as has been pointed out by multiple editors here) people wanting to research atheists are interested in those holding a certain position, not necessarily those who identify that position by a certain word.
Here are some possible names, along with what I see as some of their strengths and weaknesses:
For your consideration: List of atheists or nontheists - This includes all who disbelieve in gods, while retaining the most common name for this position. Because of the "or", it does not take a position on whether atheist = nontheist, or whether atheism is a subset of nontheism, thus retaining NPOV on that potentially divisive matter. The intro could say something to the effect that this list includes people who do not believe in God or gods, and that such people have been identified by the term atheist (broadly defined), or alternatively, nontheist.
Others' contributions to this discussion petered out over a month ago without a resolution. I hope this can be picked up again, discussed well, and resolved (hopefully for a good long time). Nick Graves ( talk) 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please offer your view on an Rfc here to decide whether of all the "List of atheist (profession)" lists, the philosophy list should be expanded to include agnostics as well, as "List of atheist and agnostic philosophers" instead of "List of atheist philosophers". The discussion may be found at Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#This_list. Killer Chihuahua 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)