Talk:Heather Mac Donald

Mac Donald's comments on Sotomayor writing

I disagree that Sotomayor's writing style is "trivia" since (1) Mac Donald chose to write about it (2) a reputable publication published it (3) it's about an important figure -- a Supreme Court justice. How Sotomayor writes in her legal opinions could have important consequences for all of us. It's important.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject writes about many topics, but that doesn't mean we should include long excerpts from every article she's ever had published. The entire "Advocacy" section has grown out of proportion to the prominence of her views. Was the Sotomayor article noted by any 3rd parties?   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see you put a lot of work into this article, but all articles should be based on secondary sources. When it comes to writing about the subject's views, her writings are primary sources. See WP:PSTS. I don't want to rush, but any sections for which we can't find independent sources should be removed. Is a week a reasonable deadline?   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, this article is based on secondary sources, but it's impossible to tell the story about who she is without using primary material. If you apply the test "all her writings are primary sources" and therefore must be removed -- this seems way too tough. Using this restrictive guideline, it would be easy to gut the entire article. As the Wikipedia guidelines state, it's a judgment call requiring people to use common sense. For example, take a look at the references for the WP article Noam Chomsky -- half perhaps of the sources are by Chomsky himself. And I think the Chomsky article is basically reasonable and good as it is. We need to know what Chomsky said and wrote to get a handle on who he is. If I applied your understanding of the rule tightly to the Noam Chomsky article, I'd have to chop half of it at least -- and this is unreasonable since readers need to know this stuff. I read several of Chomsky's books a while back -- interesting guy, btw. The idea of this article is to say what HMD is, and the way we do this is to say what her views are. And of course we need more views to balance that out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, I agree we need more views on her -- more opinions from more sources like you indicate -- more criticism of her opinions -- but construing a rule tightly would suggest concerns about your neutrality -- applying a restrictive rule to Mac Donald, and relaxing it for Chomsky -- doesn't make sense. I'll try to add more perspectives.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to "tell the story about who she is". We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight to topics depending on their prominence in independent sources. WP:NPOV. We're also not here to simply report what she says. If people want to see what she says on topics the best place for them to go are her columns and book. The "Advocacy" section now contains 11 sections sections, some of which summarize a single article or interview comment with no outside views to even show that anyone cares if she has this opinion.

I've never edited or even read the Noam Chomsky article. Now that I do, I see that there is a significant gap in the prominence of these subjects. For example, look at this section, Noam Chomsky#Academic achievements, awards and honors. So his view are clearly more prominent than this subject, who does not appear to have received any awards or honors beyond the Manhattan Institute fellowship. It would be more appropriate to summarize many of these views in a paragraph instead of eleven sections. For the topics that she's actually known for, judged by the secondary sources, we can devote more space.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what. Since I've looked over the Mac Donald article, I agree it's somehow unbalanced, and not neutral, and I agree that too many of her quotes will give off this impression. So I think summarizing her views (with support from the what you call "primary" sources) is fine. If you wish to edit it in a responsible manner, I won't interfere, but I'll watch what you do, and I urge you to be fair. I'm non-partisan. I write about both liberals and conservatives, Chomsky-types as well as Mac Donald-types. I try to be fair. In this case, unfortunately, the result came out somewhat tilting too much conservative; I agree. Still, if you gut this article, and strip Mac Donald out of all the other places, for me, this may confirm my view that Wikipedia, overall, leans in a socialist direction, since left-leaning writers like Chomsky are described using tons of primary sources, while writers like Mac Donald are held on a tight leash, and chopped out. Since you're an administrator here, and I'm not, I assume you'll prevail in what you wish to do. If you gut the article, and continue to strip Mac Donald out of every other article in Wikipedia, I'll assume your overall pattern here is biased, and people like me will have less interest in contributing here. And I'll write more knols and Amazon reviews criticizing Wikipedia for being unable to police the police -- to rein in errant administrators. That's all I can do. I hope you come to see that with power comes responsibility, and does not give you the right to chop out views which you disagree with, including references, without any attempt to explain your provisions on the talk page of an article beforehand. While it may take me 20 minutes of searching through Wikimedia Commons to find good pictures for an article, it takes you a few mouseclicks to delete my hard work. So, this is one more imbalance favoring deletionists, and works against the spirit of people willing to contribute here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference in treatment between Mac Donald and Chomsky is, as I said before, more obviously attributable to the difference in their prominence than to the difference in their politics. For you to say that both subjects the should get equal treatment is like saying that Pavlov's Dog (band) should get the same treatment as the Rolling Stones.

As for the pictures, the topic of this article is Heather Mac Donald. Pictures of her are relevant. A random picture of a panhandler isn't relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. If a rule is a rule, it should apply across the board -- everywhere -- to Chomsky, to Mac Donald, to anybody. What I'm saying is that it isn't a hard-and-fast rule, that in most cases, it's a judgment call, and that it makes sense in many situations -- as in Chomsky as in Mac Donald -- to have a mix of secondary with primary sources. You've chosen to apply the rule strictly to Mac Donald, and leave it loose for Chomsky. Look, I understand that Wikipedia has a strong socialist/liberal bias -- and this bias I understand since I've been socialist as well as capitalist in my earlier days. My sense is the encyclopedia will be stronger by trying to be neutral. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe what something is. If it's about a rabbit, it's about a rabbit -- what it is, what it does, what it eats. When we're talking about a political commentator, the main focus should be on the commentator's views. So it seems perfectly sensible to talk about Chomsky's views by having references to Chomsky's writings as well as excellent secondary sources. Ditto Mac Donald. And I notice you've been arbitrarily chopping off all mentions of Mac Donald in other articles with little explanation other than terming it "cruft". So it seems, in my view, you're targeting conservatives for tougher treatment than liberals.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

About your deletion of the picture. It was relevant. Mac Donald was talking about panhandlers. The picture was a panhandler. What more do you need? The picture wasn't one of Mac Donald -- I don't know her and doubt she'll ever consent to a picture here -- but it would be good to get one of her pictures in here. With Sotomayor, same reasoning -- by your logic, you should have chopped Sotomayor's picture here. The picture isn't of Mac Donald. Mac Donald was talking about Sotomayor. So, does the picture belong? Look, if you're an administrator, and you feel you can do what you want, and figure out whatever rationale you wish to operate by, who's there to stop you? It's just that when you push around non-partisan non-administrators like me, perhaps other admins will look at you as if you're abusing your editing powers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not choosing to do anything with the Chomsky article. I've never edited it and have no intention of doing so. We're discussing this article, so these constant comparisons to another article about a very different topic are unhelpful. If you have complaints about the Chomsky article, feel free to post them at talk: Noam Chomsky. I'll remind you again the WP:NPOV says we should give weight to issues depending on their prominence in secondary sources. So if you pick a topic that hasn't been covered in any secondary sources then the appropriate weight is approximately zero. I continue to assert that the entire Sotomayor section should be removed, including the picture.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

(section break for easier editing)

Please read what you wrote above:Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

“ ...but all articles should be based on secondary sources. When it comes to writing about the subject's views, her writings are primary sources. See WP:PSTS. I don't want to rush, but any sections for which we can't find independent sources should be removed. -- Will BeBack ”

You're advocating that all material based on so-called primary sources, such as Mac Donald's own writings, be removed? I disagree with your interpretation which I see as an overly strict reading of the rules which few articles follow. Look at references for George Will, Jim Cramer, Liz Cheney, Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, Jonathan Alter, Charles Krauthammer -- pundits from across the political spectrum -- you'll see that all of these articles have so-called primary sources where the reference is to the pundit's own speech or book or broadcast. And these sources are helpful. It helps us understand what their views are. Use these articles to get a sense of what types of sources seem reasonable. I agree secondary sources are preferred, but primary and secondary sources can work together, in combination. IF you follow a strict reading of your prohibition of all primary sources, then you'd have to gut articles on most pundits as well. The fact that you're picking only on Heather Mac Donald suggests you're selectively interpreting the rules to further your own agenda against Mac Donald and your own POV.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, I think the Mac Donald article tilts somewhat in a conservative direction. I didn't mean for this to happen, but there is a tilting. I don't like the heading "Advocacy" -- rather, maybe some other term could be used. I suppose I agree about the Sotomayor quote -- maybe that could be condensed to one line perhaps; I agree it's not that important. And maybe some of the quotes could be trimmed without losing too much of the sense of the article. But what should be added is more opposing views -- criticism of Mac Donald -- more secondary research -- this would help it tilt back, in my view. When I worked on liberal-leaning David Sirota, battles broke out there too.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But when you come along at 65 mph and delete my contributions (in my view) arbitrarily like a drive-by shooting, without much explanation -- and demean my additions with the term cruft -- then I don't want to work on it much any more. It takes me time to write quality stuff, to hunt for pictures, and then to have someone arbitrarily delete with a few mouseclicks what takes me hours to research, well. So you're on your own. I'm removing this article from my watchlist. If you gut the Mac Donald article, it will confirm my view that Wikipedia has a problem keeping errant administrators in line.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:No original research policy says:

• Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

I don't care, for the moment, about what any other article says. We're discussing this article. Primary sources may be used carefully but the article should not be based upon them. They are best used for illustrative details or quotations to support what's already in the secondary (or tertiary) sources.

You wrote

• The fact that you're picking only on Heather Mac Donald suggests you're selectively interpreting the rules to further your own agenda against Mac Donald and your own POV.

It is rude (and incorrect) of you to make that suggestion. Wikipedia has a core behavior policy called "assume good faith". A corollary principle is "comment on the edit, not the editor".

I have not used any administrative tools in this matter, so that's a red herring. However I am an experienced editor, and I bring my knowledge of policies and practices. It is completely unfair to say that I have not engaged in "much discussion". There's been so much discussion that a break was required. But we're back where we started. Rather than spending time arguing here, it'd be better to devote it to improving the article. Let's see how it looks next week.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well. We may disagree about manners here. I felt that your actions on related articles where you removed Mac Donald references, without any discussion on the talk page, and wrote the term "cruft" in the summary edit line -- well I felt those actions were not exactly WP:CIVIL; and you deleting my contributions with little or no explanation is not an example of WP:AGF. And about Wikipedia's policy regarding sources -- it also says to use common sense and I think you'll agree that the types of sources used vary greatly by the type of article. To try to write something about HMD without using any primary sources, in my view, would be suspect -- to describe what HMD is, one needs to say what HMD says and writes. While I agree secondary sources are better than primary ones, a mix is best in most cases, and judgment should be used. But I agree with you the article leans a bit to be too much pro-Mac Donald; I have trimmed it a bit so I think it's better. For future improvement, if people are interested, I suggest adding more criticisms (with references) from secondary sources. But I'm done with this article for now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, two actually. Us Wikipedians love to battle about all sorts of things, from sources to text to POV to practically anything. Here's a graphic showing us hard at work: battling. So there hopefully is enjoyment when we futz over details.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on Attack on Pearl Harbor. That reenactment was highly inaccurate and I'm shocked that the BBC would air it.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The second thing: I was thinking further about primary vs secondary sources. I agree secondary sources are best, like you do, and that the rule, overall, is a good one. But I was thinking that when HMD has a viewpoint, and it's expressed in a magazine such as the Huffington Post, for example, that it's not exactly and strictly a primary source. It's not just raw data. It's not HMD saying her views on her own website (which would be a clearer example of a primary source, in my view). Rather, the magazine that decided to publish her comments has a say here -- it decided to publish it -- it could have chosen otherwise -- by publishing her views it is saying, in effect, that these particular views are important, notable, relevant to political discussions -- the magazine is, in a tangential way, a kind of "secondary source" since its staking its reputation on printing her stuff. Suppose her comments were totally outlandish or foolish or incorrect -- then the magazine would get backlash from printing it, perhaps losing circulation sales. It's not a lone effort by HMD; rather, it's HMD + magazine or newspaper. But at the same time, the Huffington Post for example or the New York Times, by printing her views, wouldn't constitute a true secondary source either, in which we have an impartial reviewer commenting on HMD and judging it according to journalistic standards. What I'm saying is that the HMD quotes lie somewhere in a gray zone between primary and secondary sources, and they properly belong in the article (to varying extents, supplemented by better secondary sources of course). You can tell because the quotes contribute to this article. It helps us get a handle on what she's about. Think of it this way: suppose you were a kid writing a school paper on how conservatives think; or a socialist preparing to debate HMD on a radio broadcast; or a historian analyzing comparative views between socialists and conservatives, or between secular vs religious conservatives. You'd want the quotes in there. They'd help you understand. They'd help the student write their paper, or the debater plan their attack. And that's why these kinds of sources are present in almost all articles on pundits and political commentators, and belong.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone was writing a school paper on this or any other subject they should not rely on a Wikipedia article.

If someone wants to learn what the subject says on various topic then they should read her columns. We're here to write a biography that shows what all significant sources say about her. Her views are a part of that, but we should be saying what others think of her views, not just summarizing her columns.That wouldn't be NPOV.

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. If all we're doing is quoting a column then that quote belongs in the other project.

The subject has written many columns. For us to pick out a couple of them, using our own judgment as to which are most interesting, is a form of original research. Why pick the Sotomayor piece? Is it notable? Has any other commentator commented on it? Did it cause a controversy? Apparently not. It seems as if it's only in this aricle because one Wikipedia thought it worthwhile. Using that same logic, we might give equal space to every one of her columns, which is obviously impossible.

The policy does not say that articles should be based on a mix of primary and secondary sources. If you disagree with that then the thing to do is go to WT:NOR and talk the community into changing it.

Again, do what you can with the article. Next week I'll take a another look and fix any outstanding problems.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We're disagreeing. I posted my question on the WP:NOR talk page. It's complex stuff. I don't think there are easy answers. I'm interested in what others think. I fixed up the article somewhat. I think it's neutral but could use more criticism of her views and, like you say, more secondary sources. I agree about the Sotomayor stuff -- I trimmed it down.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't why we're including the Sotomayor stuff at all, even as a single line.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Update September 2011

I'm changing my views as I get more experience at Wikipedia, and seeing that the ideas proposed above by my opponent are reasonable, and maybe I was a little too gung-ho in the expansion a while back, and that there is a good case for trimming this article, possibly deleting more of the primary sources. At this point the article is perhaps better but it still might use some more trimming, possibly. I paraphrased some of the quotes, took out a few lines, and tightened, but perhaps it needs more tightening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, Surprise - its just the same ol' slanted article that wp is known for.

most of the article is just attacking her and you can see it by the choice of words.. "MacDonald argues", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald blamed", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald criticized" and on and on and on...wp is a jooooooke...107.39.156.254 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a joke except, perhaps, one might argue that some anonymous contributors to discussion pages have a talent for making nonsensical arguments. In the article, statements such as "Mac Donald argues..." and "Mac Donald criticized..." are statements of fact; it's what Mac Donald did -- she argued, she criticized, etc. If you can make a better case that the article is biased or slanted, please try to do so, but remember to be civil, stick to facts, and avoid hyperbole.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues with this article

Mac Donald is a controversial thinker, with well-argued outspoken views on a range of subjects who is writing in a nation which is deeply polarized. This suggests it is easy for Wikipedians to read her writings which are technically primary sources, draw conclusions and inferences about what they mean, but if we write them here, it may constitute original research. The recent addition about Mac Donald's views on rape are an interpretation of Mac Donald from a Wikipedian; what we really should have are views from impartial sources -- not Mac Donald, not a Wikipedian, but journalists, op-ed writers, textbook writers, etc as per reliable sources. At present, to clean up this article, the only references to Mac Donald's writings should be a mention of what subjects she writes about -- that is it -- but there can be external links to her writings for those interested, but I am removing comments in which Wikipedians, myself included, try to guess what she means.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Amusing that Wikipedia considers an op-ed writer an "impartial" source.192.160.165.63 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Replace the deletions

I came to this entry because I have read MacDonald's writings before, and I wanted an overview of her ideas.

The wholesale deletions eliminated exactly what I was looking for. "She has advocated positions on numerous subjects including ..." Well, so have a lot of people. How is Mac Donald distinctive in any way?

A book review said her book had the "freshness of a stiff, changing breeze". What the hell does that mean? Nothing.

In fact, this collection of effusive adjectives violates WP:PEACOCK.

These deletions were a misreading of WP:PSTS, which states:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

These statements were straightforward, descriptive statements of the fact of Mac Donald's positions. By picking and choosing WP:PEACOCK quotes, you are violating WP:PSTS.

I think these deletions should be restored, in accordance with WP:PSTS

BTW, I am in no way a supporter of Mac Donald's ideas or those of the Manhattan Institute. I think she's completely misguided. But I want to know what her arguments are, and I think other people should know what they are, in order to better understand why she's wrong, which is what I think will happen when people read her ideas and come to their own conclusions. But if people who agree with Mac Donald want to read and write this entry, that's free speech and WP:NPOV and they're welcome.

If you are looking for a consensus to restore those descriptions, you have my support. --Nbauman (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are these deletions the deletions which you are talking about? Let me assume so. Years back, I added much of the material from primary sources -- her controversial positions on subjects X, Y, Z etc -- for me, it seemed like I was being neutral, conveying her positions. I thought I was being fair. Contributor WillBeback disagreed, and we battled about it (see earlier posts on the talk page), but over the years as I have gained more experience here in Wikipedia, watching this article, is kind of a slow realization that Beback was right and I was wrong. One of my biases is to think that stuff I contribute happens to be worthwhile, impartial, useful, correct, neutral, and I have an instinct to protect my contributions, and it took a long time to begin to see that in this case, it was better off without them. So I deleted my earlier contributions. What happens is that us trying to state Mac Donald's positions invariably leads to POV-ishness, people either thinking we're POV, or mistrusting the article. Mac Donald's writings are essentially multi-level sequential arguments; it is hard for us to summarize those arguments, or to state specific points in them, without ourselves getting wrapped up in them (or being viewed as being wrapped up in them, advocating them, disputing them, etc etc.) That is, it is my sense today that the article should pretty much be entirely secondary sources, and even then we should be careful to be neutral, given the controversial aspects of the material, that quoting Mac Donald directly is essentially doing original research, that we're better off with less is more. About the "breeze" quote: this is a secondary source, one pundit praising another, which is a secondary source; the article says which pundit made the quote, so readers can judge for themselves what it means; I don't think it is meaningless, by the way, but says that the pundit thought that Mac Donald's views were a much-needed change, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, you were right the first time.

This isn't like an entry on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, where you can find many secondary sources describing his positions. I can't remember reading anything that describes Mac Donald's positions, and if there were such a profile, it would probably be POV itself. WP:PSTS allows us to take original quotes from sources, especially if the purpose is to illustrate a source's position. The alternative is to have nothing -- which is what we have now.

You are much too timid about original research. If you could never exercise any selection from sources, you could never write anything. Original research is putting together other peoples' information, and coming to your own conclusion. If you instead report the subject's conclusions, conclusions, that's not original research. If I describe how Mac Donald supports the institution of marriage, but then I add that Mac Donald isn't married herself, that's original research. But if I cite a NYT story that describes how Mac Donald supports the institution of marriage, but isn't married herself, that's not original research. And if I pick one statement out of many in a NYT story, which Mac Donald has repeated again and again, that's not original research.

The "breeze" quote is WP:CLICHE and WP:PEACOCK. It's the kind of statement that anyone could make about any book (for a book blurb, usually). It's trivial. It offers no insight into what Mac Donald believes, or why she's significant. I don't see how it contributes anything to the entry -- and by padding the entry with meaningless words, it makes the entry worse. There's your "less is more." --Nbauman (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe there's a better balance point, so I am heeding some of your suggestions, above, I've restored some deleted content, trying to be neutral, but kept out information from the Huffington Post since my sense is the fact-checking there is not as tight (with more op-eds, etc) and kept out articles when Mac Donald, herself, wrote, such as her editorials in USA Today. Is it better? Still, it is a fine line; surely as the sun rises and sets, the restoration of some of this highly contentious content will bring back battling, and I don't like the idea of refereeing these disputes into the infinite future, and if it happens, I may very well write on your talk page to suit up your referee uniform. About the "breeze" quote: my take is that in its old form, it was rather meaningless, but restoring the fuller quote, and putting it in the "review" section, makes it more helpful, and in the fuller form, I don't see it as a cliche or a peacock term, but says, essentially, that the reviewer thought that Mac Donald's ideas were a fresh new take on a tired, overblown, overly-debated subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

About Mac Donald being an atheist

Yes, perhaps in a technical sense, as you say, atheism is not a religion, per se, so I think you are correct, although in my view, atheism can be construed in such a way as to serve as a belief system. So I am not arguing with you on your point. Still, if we come at this from what readers want to know, to help readers get a handle on what Mac Donald is all about, then knowing that she is an "atheist" is an important part of that. Her atheism is integral to her philosophy, her writings, her take on other related subjects, so I see a practical aspect to keeping in the term "atheist" in the infobox, and the religion slot is a convenient place to put this information, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoxoxes.)

"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

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". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It goes against consensus

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.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

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". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

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, they are atheists who 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.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for represents the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with your arguments, and I have spent considerable time pondering metaphysics, religion, science, the nature of things, and am currently doing courses on several religious-oriented topics. So that, in the abstract, it makes sense to not think of "atheism" as a type of religion, as you argue convincingly. Still, in this instance, for the subject of Heather Mac Donald, I think it is important for readers, trying to understand where she's coming from, that they be informed, in the infobox, that she is an atheist. People need to know that in order to "get" what she's about; it is integral to how she sees numerous other subjects, and numerous sources attest to this. So in this case, I think an exception is warranted, to describe, in the religion field, "None (atheist)" -- which readers will understand, it is not confusing, it does not lead us into arguments about whether atheism is a religion or not, simply tells readers what they need to know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In cases like this, it is clear that they have no religion, and that they express their lack of religion by explicitly adopting the term "Atheist". So, "None (Atheist)" is correct and acceptable. However, I completely accept the point that "Religion: Atheism" is utterly wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea that disblief in the non-existent is religious is absurd. By definition, religion is faith. One need have no faith to insist on falsifiable evidence for the supernatural. Who claims that a disbelief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny constitutes religious belief? Nicmart (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments

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) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to get interested in this issue. Really trying. Snooze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Space in last name?

Could an established editor add a brief explanation on why the subject of the article uses a space in her last name (i.e., "Mac Donald" instead of the conventional "MacDonald")? Is it just an affectation? Thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.82.246 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody responded, and I've wondered the same myself. Nicmart (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

War on cops

MacDonald's contention that there was/is a "war on cops" has been devastatingly demolished from several quarters, including by economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute. Surely the factual incorrectness of her claim should be included in this entry. Nicmart (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Secular

What evidence is there that she is known for "secular"? Has it been the subject of one of her books or any of her articles? Nicmart (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

Regarding this edit, we do not assume that people are married or unmarried, nor that they have children, nor that they don't live alone. This is for the same reason we don't automatically mention their height or pet's names or similar. Not all verifiable info is encyclopedic. As for living in New York, sure, but...

Does this source actually mention any of this info? I do not have access to the WSJ, but versions I've found online do not mention this information at all. We need to look at reliable sources, (hopefully independent sources) and summarize what they say in context. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Awards

I've removed inline reference to non-primary source needed. The reference is to the use of primary sources e.g. the award of the Bradley Prize. I fee that the use of the primary source is reliable, verifible and illustrative (of the subject's award history) and so does not need a secondary source. Editing on the basis of WP:BRD. Emmentalist (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Criminal Justice Reform

The intro paragraph says, misleadingly:

She is known for her ... opposition to criminal justice reform.

But that implies that she has no objection to

• racial profiling
• police brutality

I highly doubt that we can find any record of her favoring such abuses.

Merely because she testified against one "reform bill", doesn't make her a supporter of the things the bill proponents say they are against. Such a claim makes for a one-sided account.

It would be better to use the formula A says B because of C and identify which of her opponents have branded her as opposing reform.

Absent that, we might try providing her rationale for opposing certain legislation, for example if Mac Donald said that the proposed measure wouldn't actually solve the problem it was designed to address. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Views section includes her opposition to no-racial-profiling programs and that she thinks criticism of police brutality encourages crime. And the body, not the lead, is the appropriate location for drilling down into those views. That said, I think the lead sentence would better serve the readers if it were more specific about her policing views rather than relying on the vague "criminal justice reform" (which can mean different things depending on the POV of the speaker). Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mac Donald's views on racial profiling

The cited article uses out of context quotes. She only objects to removing all references to race (or religion) when trying to identify terrorists. How is this "racial profiling"? Are we Wikipedia editors adopting the POV that any mention of race, when good guys are trying to catch or stop bad guys, is necessarily racism?

I think it would be better to say that Person A called Mac Donald an advocate of racial profiling, and provide their reasoning (if any).

Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and they should not automatically approve the conclusions or POV's of critics. Rather, the articles should attribute those critical views to those who advance them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Racist remarks about 'low IQ nannies'

I think this should be included in the Article.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-dei-crusader-heather-mac-donald-rants-about-nannies-of-color-in-racist-tirade 2A02:3037:40B:1DA1:E35:3056:32D7:429E (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Mac Donald and Great Replacement Theory

Hi, Editor @CNMall41 has reverted my edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Mac_Donald&diff=1220797624&oldid=1220796907) on Mac Donald's statements about the Great Replacement Theory, and gave the edit note, " but saying "Mac Donald has also endorsed the "Great Replacement" white nationalist conspiracy theory....." is original research. Media Matters is also not reliable for such statement and that is simply a transcript of teh podcast which is also not reliable"

1. I'm happy to use a different word than "endorsed" if they feel that that verb means original research, we can say "Mac Donald has also claimed that the Great Replacement white nationalist conspiracy theory is 'real'" or similar.

2. I don't understand why Media Matters is "not reliable for such statement" - per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. What is the argument against? It is a secondary source, and the fact that it includes a transcript doesn't change that. If anything, their presentation of the transcript improves verifiability and reliability over an alternate secondary source that presented merely an isolated quote. Secarctangent (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. A few things stuck out with the edits. The first is the WP:OR as I do not see any of the sources saying that she endorses it. Maybe I missed it would simply be an assumption based on her statements on a podcast. The second is the references used as Media Matters is not reliable (nor unreliable as you pointed out). But, that is a reference from months ago and the other reference is "Angry White Men" which looks like a wordpress blog and the article was published today which always raises a flag to me. The final is the fact you disambiguated Great Replacement to "Great Replacement" white nationalist conspiracy theory which is pretty narrow focused and not even close to NPOV.

Above is the rationale for citing ONUS. As far as different wording, I do not see how we can say any of the proposed without a secondary reliable source supporting. We don't list everything that is claimed on a podcast. If that were the case, we could fill 20 pages of Wikipedia with things she "claims."--CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You continue to not provide a reason that Media Matters is not reliable, but just assert it. What is your reason?

I do agree with you on the disambiguation, tho. I meant to link to the broader article.

I agree that many things on podcasts are not notable. A repeated claim, as you note, across several months, that a racist conspiracy theory is "real" is notable, however. Secarctangent (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Media Matters gives the following quote regarding the conspiracy theory:

"There is something about European civilization that is highly susceptible to blackmail. We are now being blackmailed. The reality is Black privilege, not white privilege. It used to be white privilege. I am not denying that. But for some reason, white civilization has decided to engage in the great replacement theory, and to go down without a fight. And I'm gonna fight, you're gonna fight, Charlie."[20]

To me (and probably everyone else here) this statement only makes sense if Mac Donald believes in the legitimacy of the conspiracy theory. I don't think calling this an endorsement is inaccurate, but it's still our own interpretation of a primary source (as passed along by a secondary source). The Media Matters article provides no usable analysis at all, it merely repeats a portion of the transcript. For various reasons, we shouldn't use headlines as sources, so this is basically WP:OR.

Using the Megyn Kelly Show quote while citing the show itself is not going to work. We need reliable, independent sources to show that this specific quote is relevant and also that it supports the attached claim. Again, it may seem obvious, but we need reliable sources to do the work for us, per WP:SYNTH.

Angry White Men has been cited by reliable sources fairly often, but it is still a blog. I suppose a case could be made for citing it here, but that's an uphill battle, especially for a WP:BLP. It would be much better to find a reliable source which directly says this. We would than look at that source and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that I am happy to avoid using the word endorsement -- I'm happy to use a different word, as I said above: " we can say "Mac Donald has also claimed that the Great Replacement white nationalist conspiracy theory is 'real'" or similar." We have a quote saying that she says it's real.

I don't see how it would be SYNTH or OR if we say that. Secarctangent (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of SYNTH or OR, the fact remains we do not create lists of everything she claims. If we did, the page would need subpages upon subpages as I am sure this is not the first podcast she has been on where she has voiced support or opposition for something. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the article would be improved if it more-clearly indicated just how fringe Mac Donald's views are, but we need to use reliable, independent sources for this. It must be up to sources to determine which fringe views are worth mentioning. Among other issues, if we tried to document all of the outlandish things she's said, the article would falsely imply that Mac Donald is more important or influential than she actually is. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)