Talk:List of atheists (surnames R to S)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image copyright problem with Image:DonSiegel.jpg[edit]

The image Image:DonSiegel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad evidence[edit]

The "evidence" for Shaw's atheism is given as follows:

"All the sweetness of religion is conveyed to the world by the hands of storytellers and image-makers. Without their fictions the truths of religion would for the multitude be neither intelligible nor even apprehensible; and the prophets would prophesy and the teachers teach in vain."

This is a comment on existing official religions, not an expression of belief or not-belief in God. It just goes to show how ridiculous this article is. I nominate the whole thing for deletion. CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros[edit]

I removed George Soros because his presence in the list was based on flimsy evidence. Soros never said "I am an atheist"; rather, he responded "No" to the question "Do you believe in God?" Soros has not commented further on the subject.

Atheism is defined as "someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology". Soros was not asked whether he believes in multiple gods, he was asked only about the Judeo-Christian God. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Soros once wrote in 1994, "I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes", which has been quoted a number of times, including in the LA Times. Soros has been criticized as having a god-complex, as thinking he is his own god. If it were true, that's not atheism, either. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Joseph Stalin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Joseph Stalin.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stavrokopoulou[edit]

Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a known atheist as well, with references in her article to support that. Is she not eligible for addition here? 99.129.40.75 (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of atheists (surnames R to S). 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not list-worthy if no separate WP article?[edit]

My addition to this list was reverted with the reason that the person needs to meet WP criteria for notability (as reflected by having a separate article). However, I have seen many other lists which include people (or things in list of things such as com. satellites) without articles! Is everyone else doing it wrong? One example: List of astronauts by year of selection (See most recent years especially, but folks without articles are in these lists in almost all years.) Here is another random example... List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers I'd like to see where this policy is stated. And if it IS the actual WP policy, man oh man do you folks have your work cut out for you fixing things! RobP (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: "Is everyone else doing it wrong?" Frankly, yes. Lists with red links exist in defiance of the way we'd like to do things. This one's truly rare: it's a big list that actually met the WP:WRITEITFIRST standard. There's probably not one single policy, guideline, recommendation, essay, etc. that isn't disregarded or violated in multiple places on here. Even though perfect compliance will never happen, we should still try. That's what I did here. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CityOfSilver 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that 'Lists with red links exist but should not' is a mis-characterization of what we are arguing about. That is a separate issue, and not the one I am questioning. It is clearly possible to add an item or name without "a red link" - just as I have done after you pointed out that a red-link is bad. So the issue is just is it required or not for all list entries to have their own pages. WP:WRITEITFIRST does not apply if one does not attempt to use a wikilink. I still have not seem the policy specified that only items/people with WP articles can be in a list. RobP (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So looking into this further as you are forcing me to do, the article you pointed to actually says:
  • "While lists (especially stand-alone list articles) can serve a navigational function, lists are primarily a form of encyclopedic content. Thus, an entry often may simply present encyclopedically relevant facts from the cited reliable sources and not link to a separate article..." See here. I see that as case close RobP (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rp2006: Adding no-article listings is only possible because tons of these lists are edited by people who don't care that we don't want to do that. My understanding of WRITEITFIRST is that, if we allow red links, literally any atheist whose last name starts with an R or an S can list themselves here. Lots of people are atheists. Shouldn't we restrict inclusion here to notable people so we don't get lists with millions of names? Because the standard isn't this kind of link versus that kind; it's whether or not the person is notable. Specifically, see WP:NNC, which says that adding non-notable people to a list is not compliant with policy if that list has a specific exception "restrict[ing] inclusion to notable items or people." At the top of this page is the restriction, specifically the text "sortable by the field for which they are mainly known." (And the restriction is further established because before you added Segal, 128 of 128 listings were blue links. That's something to strive for, not ignore.)
And I'm looking at Segal's personal site, specifically her "bio" subsection, and I'm wondering if you could render all of this moot. If she had an article, I'd have no reason to try to remove her from here. Would you consider writing it? You shouldn't use her site as a source per WP:PRIMARY but if those media mentions are accurate, finding them and using them as sources should get her compliant with at least one of the standards listed at WP:MUSICBIO, specifically #1, #4, and maybe #6. CityOfSilver 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CityOfSilver:: That is an interesting suggestion to make a page for her - but I cannot spend the time doing that right now. And I think that is still skirting the point I am trying to make here. It does not seem to be clear WP policy to need an article to be in a list. As you went back to discussing red links above ("if we allow red links, literally any atheist whose last name starts with an R or an S can list themselves here...") I am not sure we are arguing about the same point. Let me say again - I agree that red links are bad. However, again, one can add a name without it being either a working wikilink or a red link (as I did in this case the second time). The template allows for that as I found out and used it. The upshot is that there seems to be conflicting info regarding who is permitted in a list. I found this here WP:NOTESAL: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." Seems clear enough from that that Shelly would be an OK addition... But then the same sentence continues and muddies the issue and leave it open to interpretation: "...although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." So there we are. Thanks Wikipedia for the clear guidance! RobP (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of atheists (surnames R to S). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of atheists (surnames R to S). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of atheists (surnames R to S). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (surnames R to S)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (surnames R to S) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists (surnames R to S) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_atheists_(surnames_R_to_S)&oldid=1203877161"