User talk:Nick Graves

Taking Woodstock actor

You're welcome. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 04:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Redefinition of atheism?

Sagan was most definitely an agnostic, who neither affirmed nor denied the existence of God. That makes him a nontheist (and therefore an atheist, in the modern, broad sense).

That seems a curious redefinition. Atheism has a perfectly good definition, agnostics are most certainly not automatically atheist. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it that first line is a quote from me? Anyway, being agnostic doesn't automatically make one an atheist or nontheist. If I said that before, I was mistaken. However, the broad definition of atheist (one who does not believe in deities) is well-attested in multiple, reliable sources. It's not my re-definition, but a definition that is gaining currency. There is more than one definition for the word. Anyway, we have a reliable source identifying Sagan as an atheist. That's why he's in List of nontheists. Nick Graves (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a definition that 'is gaining currency' or not, but I do not believe it to be the dominant one if we go by dictionary sources. If by broad you mean unspecific, then perhaps yes. It is still such that most dictionaries cater to 2 non-overlapping definitions, 1. Ignorant of religion( In the sense of a newborn or 'innocent') 2. The doctrine or belief that there are no gods. The position of 'withholding belief' is the agnostic one. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries naturally lag behind in their documentation of usage. The dominant definition used by those who self-identify as atheists is anyone who does not believe in deities. Regardless, the term nontheist always includes such persons, which avoids the controversy of competing definitions. Nick Graves (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps dictionaries do lag behind, that doesn't change wikipedias policy of relying on such sources for content. Considering the broad definition of atheism that seems to be sought adopted it is curious that those atheists don't simply self-identify as nontheists. Obviously we cannot just write articles that support our supposition, because of wikipedias policy regarding reliance on WP:RS. Atheism is an important concept, held to be so not just by those that identify themselves as following its creed. Further, a word or concept is not 'owned' by those that identify by that word. By the way, I am moving our dialogue currently at Talk:List_of_nontheists_(science_and_technology) to Talk:List_of_nontheists, I hope that you do not take offence to the move. Unomi (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The definitions used in List of nontheists are well-supported by reliable sources. There is nothing about that list's use of terminology that goes against WP policy. Nick Graves (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have outlined some of the problems with the definition used at Talk:List_of_nontheists. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sagan

I don't really want to get into a silly edit war over this, but I'm positive you can't classify Sagan as a nontheist unless all agnostics can be classified as such. I've read all his books and sometimes he was very skeptical about the idea of God, but other times he was certainly open to the possibility and actually argued that a universe with regular laws would be what you would expect from a God, defined as a creator of the universe. He certainly held that the God hypothesis wasn't in any way scientifically proven, but also that it hasn't really been challenged scientifically either. He also held that the idea of Extraterrestrial life for instance didn't have any scientific evidence backing it up, but he certainly was more than open to the possibility of it. So again, if you define a nontheist as someone who doesn't 100% assert God exists, then you would have to classify all agnostics as nontheists, and I'm pretty sure that someone who says they don't know if God exists but that he might but that his existence hasn't been proven, which would be Sagan's position, would not be classified as a nonthiest. He was agnostic on the idea of extraterrestrials but you wouldn't classify him as someone who did not believe in extraterrestrials. As for the sources labeling him an atheist, since they contradict his own declarations of the subject, they would seem to be false claims, even if they are in a major newspaper.Roy Brumback (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Nick! 8bit (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tate, Golding et al.

Just wanted to say that I didn't mean to come off as a bit of a jerk on the issue. Naturally, I respect your right to include those people you think fit the category of "nontheist" on that list, but since people in the public eye are often so vague about their beliefs, or change them a few times in their lives, it's hard to tell who is who. Corbmobile (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

List of former Jews AfD

Hi Bus stop. You've expressed elsewhere your objections to the term "ethnic Jew," which is why I did not take your comment about Christian identity possibly having an ethnic component literally, but rather interpreted it as a rhetorical point against the claim that one can be ethnically, but not religiously Jewish. According to most sources on this question that I've seen, Judaism is, in part, an ethnicity, while Christianity is not. One can be born a Jew, but one is not born a Christian, but rather becomes one later in life through baptism, confirmation and/or conversion. One can be an irreligious Jew, or even a Jew who practices another religion instead of Judaism. However, one cannot be an irreligious Christian, as this is a contradiction. Nick Graves (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to move this (the above) here and I'll try to get back to you on it when I get a chance. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Hruska

The American Unitarian Association. Executive Secretary Administrative Correspondence Files, 1921-1953 has a file on Roman Hruska, and these are held at the Harvard Divinity School. Roman Hruska was criticised as a Unitarian and called the "Senator from General Motors" from an American friend of mine who is a devout Catholic as well as being a liberal Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagdadjenny (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't sign above. Hope this makes amendsBagdadjenny (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You are correct about Political Graveyard but it is an interesting resource. I won't put Hruska back on. I leave that to you but a simple Hruska Unitarian in google will provide a number of references. Back to that in a moment. My friends anecdotal reference obviously doesn't meet WP standards, as you correctly state, but it led me to research the matter. I live in Melbourne Australia and this is the first time I've edited on a non-Australian matter. Hruska voted for the civil rights Bill under Lyndon Johnson's presidency, and a book published recently, with an extract on google, suggests his Unitarian religion may have been responsible for this. Anyway this is what I found on google. The 2005 reference to the book by Kotz is probably the most authoritative.

Tag: unitarian - FamousWhy Abigail Fillmore Links · Roman Hruska · Roman Hruska Videos · Roman Hruska Links · Lucretia Peabody Hale · Lucretia Peabody Hale Links · Bob Packwood ... www.famouswhy.com/tags/unitarian - Cached

Philocrites: The plight of the Unitarian Republican. And for the rest of us: Would a candidate's Unitarian Universalist affiliation ... and the very conservative Roman Hruska voted for the Civil Rights bill, ... www.philocrites.com/archives/003112.html - Cached

Judgment days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and ... - Google Books Result Nick Kotz - 2005 - History - 522 pages Whenever Roman Hruska, a Unitarian, flew home to Omaha, he would "accidentally" be greeted at the airport by an important Nebraska church leader. ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0618088253...

I'm a member of the Melbourne Unitarian Church, and one of the leaders of the Unitarian Church in England didn't want to acknowledge Neville Chamberlain as a Unitarian, no doubt for political reasons. Some Unitarians in Australia have very conservative views politically and some Church members who hold very left wing political views do not want to acknowledge the fact. I don't agree with this attitude.

Two Australian Unitarians that should go on the list, and I need to verify that they are of course, are

Catherine Helen Spence, has a WP entry and is on an Australian bank note. Angus Inglis Clark, who is the co-author of the Hare-Clark proportional representation voting system used in Tasmania, is another

Biography of Andrew Inglis Clark - University of Tasmania 24 Oct 2003 ... CLARK, ANDREW INGLIS (1848-1907). barrister, politician and judge, ... Unitarians, many of them academics and lawyers, with whom Clark ... www.utas.edu.au/library/exhibitions/clark/biog.html - Cached

There isn't much doubt there are authoritative references to Clark, and there probably are for Spence too. There are pictures of prominent Unitarians on the wall of the Melbourne Unitarian Church and Spence is one of them, although Clark isn't.

Thank you and best wishes

Bagdadjenny (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Inglis Clark has an entry on WP. I spelt his given name incorrectly without proofreading first. Apologies

Bagdadjenny (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to add Hruska, as a book about President Lyndon Johnson and civil rights by a Pulitzer Prize winning author, Nick Kotz, makes claims about how Hruska, as a Unitarian, sought to win over other religions to the civil rights cause, which Hruska supported although he was an ultra conservative in most other things, certainly in economics. I've also added Catherine Helen Spence and Andrew Inglis Clark as there are references to both as Unitarians in the on line edition of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is published by the National Library of Australia and is considered authoritative, and I'm sure you'll agree that it is if you examine it.

Thank you again for your professionalism and your helpful suggestions.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Clark, astronaut killed in Columbia disaster.

I found a reference to Laurel Clark being a Unitarian Universalist and replaced her in List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. Thought you'd like to know. Keep up the good work! DaKine (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your understanding. I'd be happy to see a quick resolution on this, if only to satisfy my personal curiosity. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nontheists

Actually there has been a discussion, although not at the talk page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism. What we also have is:

1. BLP violations - we are calling these people nontheists although there are no sources for that.

2. Verification problems, again, no sources.

So, I'll go to the BLP noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please revert yourself and establish consensus first

Nick. You have unilaterally moved a page that is undergoing active discussion, and I would please ask you to revert yourself. There is no consensus to move the page in the manner you have done. It appears this is the second page move of this nature that you have made in a matter of days. The other one was also reverted. Most would consider this behavior disruptive, but I will AGF and please ask you to revert and to gain consensus before doing this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gris. Disruptive or bold? I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't know what other recent page move you're talking about. I've only moved the list of atheists. If it is true that the list as it existed before involved BLP violations due to certain people not self-identifying as atheists, then the move I've made addresses this concern, at least partially. As none raised objections to any of the new names for the list that I had suggested, I saw no problem with going ahead with it. I would revert myself on this matter, but that would only restore potential BLP violations currently being discussed. I ask: Is it better to retain a restrictive list name while consensus develops and risk offending nonbelievers who don't want to be called atheists, or is it better to use a more inclusive name that is less likely to offend? The move better protects BLP. Nick Graves (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The non-disruptive way to make that point is to bring it up in the ongoing discussion. I used the plural because all the sublists were moved as well. Do they all automatically move along with the main list? If so I was unaware, but that's all I meant.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Gris. I reviewed WP:DISRUPT, and I really don't see how my move matches the description of disruptive editing there. I consider all the sublists part of the same list. I moved them individually, but I thought of it as just one move. Nick Graves (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to wikilawyer over this then see:

• Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

Pay particular attention to the last part that I have put in italics. Again, the non-disruptive way to engage your point is to continue to do so through discussion as opposed to unilateral changes. I'm imploring you to revert this.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Gris, if you believe I am being disruptive, please follow the steps at WP:DDE. I stand by my edits. Nick Graves (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is your wish Nick. The reason I'm asking you, editor to editor, to revert them is because I do not believe in reporting people to various noticeboards and causing unnecessary drama or conversely to start edit wars. I believe in giving people a chance to do the right thing themselves. But you think you are doing the right thing so clearly that's not going to work. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted you. Please respect WP:BRD on this and discuss the change on the talk page. I don't see any need presently to escalate anything further in terms of WP:DDE as you suggested above. Let's discuss the change. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)