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 1 |
I want to know the source of the assertion that George F. Will stole Jimmy Carter's debate notebooks.-- 216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Carter/FreshAir reference notes that George Will was the middle man who received the stolen material from a White house employee and brought it to the Reagan campaign, in addition to coaching Regan for the debate (0:28:30 into the interview). I had and added the reference earlier but someone deleted it. President Carter interview, Fresh Air, Thursday - October 21, 2004 Duk 13:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting is a "liberal media watchdog" is a biased opinion and not a fact, it was stated as a fact. Their site does not uphold the previous claim and neither does the Wikipedia entry for the group. "some conservative critics of FAIR contend it is a liberal organization with a strictly anti-conservative bias." As with any article always use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view. Write as if the information is a non-judgmental news article.
Kaylus 12:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I’ve deleted the “Controversy” section entirely for two reasons. First, an encyclopedia article about an author should present what defines the man (or woman) and his/her ideas. The “controversies” in question might belong in a biography, but certainly are not among the key elements that should appear in an article as brief as this one. Second, much of the criticism leveled in the controversy section appears on its face biased. For instance, it appeared to criticize Mr. Will for being an unabashed admirer of Ronald Regan. Mr. Will, after all, writes opinion pieces, not news articles. The function of formulating and expressing opinions about public figures and their policies is the essence of his job – and contrary to current custom, critical opinions are no more objective, and no more professional, than expressions of admiration. In another instance, Mr. Will was criticized for being a partisan speech writer turned commentator. Certainly there is a time honored tradition of political partisans from both camps, from Peggy Noonan to – George Stephanopoulos, making the transition from political insider to commentator. Mr. Will wears his conservative sympathies openly in his writing and his commentaries, and does not hold himself out to be an “objective observer.” Later, Mr. Will was criticized for his actions in an incident involving Jimmy Carter. Yet Mr. Carter seems to have withdrawn his accusations. Finally, Mr. Will is criticized for not always fully revealing his personal relationship to a story. These points may be well taken, but they hardly seem to rise to the level of gravity that define the career in queston. They were not events that launched, characterized or ended a career – such as Dan Rather’s debacle with the Col. Killian / Air National Guard story, which effectively ended his career. In short, the article is a crisper, more accurate, professional portrayal of Mr. Will’s career without the “Controversy” section. MrLosGatos 08:11, 25 December 2005
I'm too new here to be comfortable editing, but shouldn't the intro here at least identify Will as "conservative"? Also, some of the most interesting aspects of his writing over the last five or so years are 1) his growing disenchantment with the GOP's abandonment of small-government conservative principles (e.g. his attacks on No Child Left Behind), 2) his open ideological hostility to neoconservatism from a Reagan-era conservative (or perhaps paleo-conservative) perspective, 3) his related ambivalence to the Iraq war (that Counterpouch link is really dated by events), and 4) a contempt for anti-intellectual social-conservatism (e.g. Creationists) that is as deep as any Ivy League prof. Really, his frustration with the Bush abandonment of GOP principles is like a mirror to progressive frustration in the 90s with Clinton's abandonment of liberal principles. 171.159.64.10 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Bert
I removed the term "conservative" in keeping with NPOV. It's true that Will is widely regarded as one, but the reader should be left to reach his own conclusion based on the facts presented in the article. This is consistent with Wikipedia convention. I couldn't find "liberal" used anywhere as a descriptive term when I searched several articles about those who would be widely regarded as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskii2001 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed a link to a piece of criticism. The off-site work was simply a scattershot polemic. Better to keep notations of criticism on-site with references. -- 216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, you don't get a degree in "politics." Someone confirm whether or not that's political science?
hummmmmm.....-- 69.37.39.147 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Deletion. Irrelevant and meant to provoke internet fight. 66.207.82.237 ( talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there is definite evidence of bias in this article. The controversy section is significantly larger than the biography.
This is another "just because he's conservative" controversy section. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the controversy section, it's just that there's little else in his page. He's been one of the most influencial columbists of the past 25 years, it should at least outline his political positions.( JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
(------------------ Overall I've been impressed with Wikipedia's ability to keep articles like this balanced, but I too was shocked to see how much the Controversy section (which is apparently back) outweighed all his achievements and general political philosophy. Within the controversy section itself, there is reference to the recent disagreement over global warming and ice caps. I don't see how this is controversial. There are many viewpoints on global warming and countless ways to interpret data in support of a particular viewpoint (a frightening thought when most people now believe the science is 'settled'). Mr. Will was using valid published data to support an opinion. The fact that the institute reporting that data chose to retract it because it does not support global warming theories does not make it any less factual.
Also it's interesting to note that his criticism of the Bush administration is apparently not controversial. Might that be because the author believes that any criticism of Bush is not controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightandverity ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to check back in a week, and if nobody wants to defend this content here in the talk page, I'll be getting rid of most of it. 0nullbinary0 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's important to include criticism of someone whose job it is to criticize. I added a reference to Eric Alterman's book "Sound and Fury" so there's some acknowledgement of outside opinion, rather than necessarily an explicit criticism of Will in the entry itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Panorama ( talk • contribs).
Isn't his name actually George F. Will? I mean pretty much universally. Aaron Bowen 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
File:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is the section on his criticism of the McCain campaign? Gang14 ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Editing, what is there, to reflect that the election has ended. BJAtreides ( talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What's the consensus on the authenticity of his haircut? Tsuguya ( talk) 13:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.40.125 ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That Washington Post column does not support the assertion that he considers the issue unimportant. Perhaps there is another column in which he says that, but it is not present in that column. Even if one were to try to find it implicit in his column, it would be a stretch, and even were it less of a stretch, it would be imprudent to imply such a statement from ambiguous language. However, here there is simply nothing at all to even lead one to the conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.214 ( talk) 05:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find any point at which Will condemned or supported the legality of abortion. When I looked back at the article I don't know why I said he thought it was unimportant, I wrote this a while ago and hadn't been back. Saying that he just belives Roe V. Wade to be unconstitutional would come across to most readers as calling him Pro-Life, so I think there should be some reference to the lack of clarity about his position. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not find anything in Will's article in the Washington post that was referenced in note [26] to support the assertion, "On abortion, Will believes that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional.[26]".
He said that "Roe short-circuited a democratic process" and that in the days before Roe, "democracy was allowed to function" I'd say that he's condemning the decision on legal grounds. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I would doubt that a Supreme Court decision can be ever considered unconstitutional, as it is the Court that actually is responsible for interpreting the constitution. 71.50.124.14 ( talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)mghood
I think I'm going to remove all but the Ice level/Jimmy Carter enteries. The other three really seem irrelevent. Any dissagreements? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by JohnM.Kelly ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Just saying where he was born isn't much compared to most Wikipedia articles. A little about his heritage and a few other details to sketch a little more about his earlier years and formation before leaving home. 75.166.179.110 ( talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that the same George Will whose father Charlie Rose said was David Foster Wallace's father's mentor?
0.47 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPStHVi0SI&feature=related
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.55.93 ( talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and open this discussion, as I expect more back and forth editing on the new section. To be clear, to follow WP:BLP policies, we need to be very careful to avoid original research and synthesis with regard to Will's controversial article. We can't interpret what he said; we can only report what he said and what others have said in response. Here is an example of a good article that could be used to source more details about the controversy itself, rather than individual responses: "Washington Post Opinion Editor Defends George Will’s ‘Survivor Privilege’ Column As Twitter Backlash Continues". It contains a lot of good information, and mentions that the Washington Post plans to publish responses to the article. — Torchiest talk edits 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.
Saying "Religion: Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color: Bald", "TV Channel: Off" or "Type of shoe: Barefoot". Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious fundamentalists.
According to our page on religion, "59% of the world's population is religious, and 36% are not religious, including 13% who are atheists, ". "Religion = Atheist" does not differentiate atheists from the 23% who are non-religious and non-atheist.
This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
I have changed "Religion: Atheist" to "Religion: None:" on hundreds of Wikipedia infoboxes, and have received many thanks for doing so. In only a tiny minority of the edits has anyone objected to or reverted the edit, and in every case so far the consensus was either "Religion: none" or removing the religion entry from the infobox.
I do not believe that there is no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" here or on any other page on Wikipedia. There was no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" at WP:MOS, and I am confident that any WP:RFC on the subject will result in a finding of "no consensus."
Nor will anyone ever get consensus for adding "Hair Color = Bald", "Television Channel = Off" "Wind speed = Total Vacuum" "Birth Date = Banana", or any other entry that cause a significant number of readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date..." or "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..." Even if Lady Gaga decides to list Banana as her birth date, we will document that in the main article with a citation to a reliable source. In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material.
If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist".
When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, "Atheist", while technically correct, is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Yes, Penn & Teller reject all theistic religions. But they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. "Religion = none" is the only choice that represents the data accurately and without a fundamentalist bias. -- Guy Macon ( talk) Posted 08:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC), Edited 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment The question of whether or not atheism is a religion is far from settled. In fact based on the innumerable hits from the Google search for "is atheism a religion" it appears to be a very hot topic for debate. Just a random selection of arguments on the subject suggesting at least the possibility that it is a religion... (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). I want to stress that I am taking no position on the question itself. All I am saying is that the question clearly exists, and the answer is just as clearly not settled. Beyond which, I don't think it can be credibly argued that the term "atheist" does not, at the very least, denote one's relationship to religion. On that basis alone it would seem perfectly reasonable to include it in the info box under the religion heading. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." -- Penn Jillette
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher
There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It implies something that is not true
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
It goes against consensus
It is unsourced
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.
There is no consensus for it.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits.
Quotes from the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues:
So once again, I am editing this page to reflect that clear consensus and reverting attempts to ignore or reinterpret consensus. I strongly urge taking this to WP:ANI instead of edit warring to push a version that is clearly against consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
George Will. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:34, 7 January 2016 (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 1 |
I want to know the source of the assertion that George F. Will stole Jimmy Carter's debate notebooks.-- 216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Carter/FreshAir reference notes that George Will was the middle man who received the stolen material from a White house employee and brought it to the Reagan campaign, in addition to coaching Regan for the debate (0:28:30 into the interview). I had and added the reference earlier but someone deleted it. President Carter interview, Fresh Air, Thursday - October 21, 2004 Duk 13:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting is a "liberal media watchdog" is a biased opinion and not a fact, it was stated as a fact. Their site does not uphold the previous claim and neither does the Wikipedia entry for the group. "some conservative critics of FAIR contend it is a liberal organization with a strictly anti-conservative bias." As with any article always use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view. Write as if the information is a non-judgmental news article.
Kaylus 12:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I’ve deleted the “Controversy” section entirely for two reasons. First, an encyclopedia article about an author should present what defines the man (or woman) and his/her ideas. The “controversies” in question might belong in a biography, but certainly are not among the key elements that should appear in an article as brief as this one. Second, much of the criticism leveled in the controversy section appears on its face biased. For instance, it appeared to criticize Mr. Will for being an unabashed admirer of Ronald Regan. Mr. Will, after all, writes opinion pieces, not news articles. The function of formulating and expressing opinions about public figures and their policies is the essence of his job – and contrary to current custom, critical opinions are no more objective, and no more professional, than expressions of admiration. In another instance, Mr. Will was criticized for being a partisan speech writer turned commentator. Certainly there is a time honored tradition of political partisans from both camps, from Peggy Noonan to – George Stephanopoulos, making the transition from political insider to commentator. Mr. Will wears his conservative sympathies openly in his writing and his commentaries, and does not hold himself out to be an “objective observer.” Later, Mr. Will was criticized for his actions in an incident involving Jimmy Carter. Yet Mr. Carter seems to have withdrawn his accusations. Finally, Mr. Will is criticized for not always fully revealing his personal relationship to a story. These points may be well taken, but they hardly seem to rise to the level of gravity that define the career in queston. They were not events that launched, characterized or ended a career – such as Dan Rather’s debacle with the Col. Killian / Air National Guard story, which effectively ended his career. In short, the article is a crisper, more accurate, professional portrayal of Mr. Will’s career without the “Controversy” section. MrLosGatos 08:11, 25 December 2005
I'm too new here to be comfortable editing, but shouldn't the intro here at least identify Will as "conservative"? Also, some of the most interesting aspects of his writing over the last five or so years are 1) his growing disenchantment with the GOP's abandonment of small-government conservative principles (e.g. his attacks on No Child Left Behind), 2) his open ideological hostility to neoconservatism from a Reagan-era conservative (or perhaps paleo-conservative) perspective, 3) his related ambivalence to the Iraq war (that Counterpouch link is really dated by events), and 4) a contempt for anti-intellectual social-conservatism (e.g. Creationists) that is as deep as any Ivy League prof. Really, his frustration with the Bush abandonment of GOP principles is like a mirror to progressive frustration in the 90s with Clinton's abandonment of liberal principles. 171.159.64.10 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Bert
I removed the term "conservative" in keeping with NPOV. It's true that Will is widely regarded as one, but the reader should be left to reach his own conclusion based on the facts presented in the article. This is consistent with Wikipedia convention. I couldn't find "liberal" used anywhere as a descriptive term when I searched several articles about those who would be widely regarded as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskii2001 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed a link to a piece of criticism. The off-site work was simply a scattershot polemic. Better to keep notations of criticism on-site with references. -- 216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, you don't get a degree in "politics." Someone confirm whether or not that's political science?
hummmmmm.....-- 69.37.39.147 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Deletion. Irrelevant and meant to provoke internet fight. 66.207.82.237 ( talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there is definite evidence of bias in this article. The controversy section is significantly larger than the biography.
This is another "just because he's conservative" controversy section. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the controversy section, it's just that there's little else in his page. He's been one of the most influencial columbists of the past 25 years, it should at least outline his political positions.( JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
(------------------ Overall I've been impressed with Wikipedia's ability to keep articles like this balanced, but I too was shocked to see how much the Controversy section (which is apparently back) outweighed all his achievements and general political philosophy. Within the controversy section itself, there is reference to the recent disagreement over global warming and ice caps. I don't see how this is controversial. There are many viewpoints on global warming and countless ways to interpret data in support of a particular viewpoint (a frightening thought when most people now believe the science is 'settled'). Mr. Will was using valid published data to support an opinion. The fact that the institute reporting that data chose to retract it because it does not support global warming theories does not make it any less factual.
Also it's interesting to note that his criticism of the Bush administration is apparently not controversial. Might that be because the author believes that any criticism of Bush is not controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightandverity ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to check back in a week, and if nobody wants to defend this content here in the talk page, I'll be getting rid of most of it. 0nullbinary0 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's important to include criticism of someone whose job it is to criticize. I added a reference to Eric Alterman's book "Sound and Fury" so there's some acknowledgement of outside opinion, rather than necessarily an explicit criticism of Will in the entry itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Panorama ( talk • contribs).
Isn't his name actually George F. Will? I mean pretty much universally. Aaron Bowen 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
File:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is the section on his criticism of the McCain campaign? Gang14 ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Editing, what is there, to reflect that the election has ended. BJAtreides ( talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What's the consensus on the authenticity of his haircut? Tsuguya ( talk) 13:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.40.125 ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That Washington Post column does not support the assertion that he considers the issue unimportant. Perhaps there is another column in which he says that, but it is not present in that column. Even if one were to try to find it implicit in his column, it would be a stretch, and even were it less of a stretch, it would be imprudent to imply such a statement from ambiguous language. However, here there is simply nothing at all to even lead one to the conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.214 ( talk) 05:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find any point at which Will condemned or supported the legality of abortion. When I looked back at the article I don't know why I said he thought it was unimportant, I wrote this a while ago and hadn't been back. Saying that he just belives Roe V. Wade to be unconstitutional would come across to most readers as calling him Pro-Life, so I think there should be some reference to the lack of clarity about his position. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not find anything in Will's article in the Washington post that was referenced in note [26] to support the assertion, "On abortion, Will believes that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional.[26]".
He said that "Roe short-circuited a democratic process" and that in the days before Roe, "democracy was allowed to function" I'd say that he's condemning the decision on legal grounds. JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I would doubt that a Supreme Court decision can be ever considered unconstitutional, as it is the Court that actually is responsible for interpreting the constitution. 71.50.124.14 ( talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)mghood
I think I'm going to remove all but the Ice level/Jimmy Carter enteries. The other three really seem irrelevent. Any dissagreements? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| JohnM.Kelly ( talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by JohnM.Kelly ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Just saying where he was born isn't much compared to most Wikipedia articles. A little about his heritage and a few other details to sketch a little more about his earlier years and formation before leaving home. 75.166.179.110 ( talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that the same George Will whose father Charlie Rose said was David Foster Wallace's father's mentor?
0.47 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPStHVi0SI&feature=related
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.55.93 ( talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and open this discussion, as I expect more back and forth editing on the new section. To be clear, to follow WP:BLP policies, we need to be very careful to avoid original research and synthesis with regard to Will's controversial article. We can't interpret what he said; we can only report what he said and what others have said in response. Here is an example of a good article that could be used to source more details about the controversy itself, rather than individual responses: "Washington Post Opinion Editor Defends George Will’s ‘Survivor Privilege’ Column As Twitter Backlash Continues". It contains a lot of good information, and mentions that the Washington Post plans to publish responses to the article. — Torchiest talk edits 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.
Saying "Religion: Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color: Bald", "TV Channel: Off" or "Type of shoe: Barefoot". Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious fundamentalists.
According to our page on religion, "59% of the world's population is religious, and 36% are not religious, including 13% who are atheists, ". "Religion = Atheist" does not differentiate atheists from the 23% who are non-religious and non-atheist.
This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
I have changed "Religion: Atheist" to "Religion: None:" on hundreds of Wikipedia infoboxes, and have received many thanks for doing so. In only a tiny minority of the edits has anyone objected to or reverted the edit, and in every case so far the consensus was either "Religion: none" or removing the religion entry from the infobox.
I do not believe that there is no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" here or on any other page on Wikipedia. There was no consensus for "Religion = Atheist" instead of "Religion = None" at WP:MOS, and I am confident that any WP:RFC on the subject will result in a finding of "no consensus."
Nor will anyone ever get consensus for adding "Hair Color = Bald", "Television Channel = Off" "Wind speed = Total Vacuum" "Birth Date = Banana", or any other entry that cause a significant number of readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date..." or "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..." Even if Lady Gaga decides to list Banana as her birth date, we will document that in the main article with a citation to a reliable source. In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material.
If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist".
When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, "Atheist", while technically correct, is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Yes, Penn & Teller reject all theistic religions. But they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. "Religion = none" is the only choice that represents the data accurately and without a fundamentalist bias. -- Guy Macon ( talk) Posted 08:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC), Edited 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment The question of whether or not atheism is a religion is far from settled. In fact based on the innumerable hits from the Google search for "is atheism a religion" it appears to be a very hot topic for debate. Just a random selection of arguments on the subject suggesting at least the possibility that it is a religion... (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). I want to stress that I am taking no position on the question itself. All I am saying is that the question clearly exists, and the answer is just as clearly not settled. Beyond which, I don't think it can be credibly argued that the term "atheist" does not, at the very least, denote one's relationship to religion. On that basis alone it would seem perfectly reasonable to include it in the info box under the religion heading. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." -- Penn Jillette
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher
There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It implies something that is not true
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
It goes against consensus
It is unsourced
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.
There is no consensus for it.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits.
Quotes from the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues:
So once again, I am editing this page to reflect that clear consensus and reverting attempts to ignore or reinterpret consensus. I strongly urge taking this to WP:ANI instead of edit warring to push a version that is clearly against consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
George Will. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)