Talk:Antony Flew

message: I would like to add some material about Dr. Gerald Schroeder's scholarship, who, according to the late Professor Antony Flew, heavily influenced Dr. Flew's conversion to deism.  My edit was, however, reversed.  Jehannette 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already said to you on my talk page, you can't add promotional and off topic content to a quote; your edit is unrelated to what is written in that paragraph.
Instead, I suggest you to write a biography of Gerald Schroeder on Wikipedia, if you can find reliable sources about him.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding your recent reverts and the content of your edits, please read Wikipedia:Promotional and Consensus.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Wikipedia page exists for Dr. Schroeder:  Gerald Schroeder Any objections to including this link in the article about Dr. Flew?  Jehannette 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  For my edit, I included a link to Dr. Schroeder's Wikipedia page, which has a link to the article which I had originally linked to from the late Professor Mark Perakh. Other than that, Dr. Flew's article is unchanged. Jehannette 04:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you can link to Schroeder's WP biography, but, as I said before, you can't add an off topic article with promotional tone in between a quote that is unrelated to it.--GenoV84 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dr. Schroeder's Wikipedia page has the information and link that I wanted to add, and so, users can find criticism of his work on his bio page.  Best, Dawn Jehannette 11:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Gerald Schroeder

message: Political Philosophy.
The article badly needs a section on Antony Flew's political philosophy (the opinions that reach their fullest expression in "Equality in Liberty and Justice", but which cover many works over many years). Antony Flew spent a great deal of his time opposing the views of both the socialists and the supporters (socialist and non socialist) of "social justice" (John Rawls and so on).
Indeed Antony Flew was perhaps the most important critic of social justice egalitarian (and semi egalitarian) ideas in political philosophy, in the generation after that of M.J. Oakeshott and F.A. Hayek.
Perhaps I should write such a section for the article - but Antony Flew was a friend of mine, and so what I would write would be biased.91.107.81.8 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarianism is a disingenuous invention of David Koch as a long-term sleeper ploy to have his businesses deregulated so that he could make even more money and pollute with impunity. Koch appropriated the term “libertarianism” from a long pre-existing political philosophy which stood for precisely the opposite of what Koch’s “libertarian” ideology stands for. He appropriated the ideas, such as they are, from Ayn Rand, just watering down Rand slightly. The “social issues” bit is a red herring. The rich people pulling the Republican Party’s “right-wing” “conservative” strings have never really cared about “social issues” one way or the other. They care about money and power. “Conservative” or “libertarian” “social issues” are just bait to trick non-rich people into voting against their own interests. In short, to the extent that “on the right” means anything at all, “libertarianism” is as much “on the right” as anything could be. 2600:6C44:117F:F459:406D:7608:604B:FC3D (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anthony Flew was not "on the right" he was a libertarian and wrote articles for The Journal of Libertarian Studies. I have amended this.
Libertarianism is of course neither left nor right, but "leftish" on social issues and for the free market without state-cronyism of public-private partnership so not exactly "right" either since the right are all for government greasing big business.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.171.179 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarianism is a disingenuous invention of David Koch as a long-term sleeper ploy to have his businesses deregulated so that he could make even more money and pollute with impunity. Koch appropriated the term “libertarianism” from a long pre-existing political philosophy which stood for precisely the opposite of what Koch’s “libertarian” ideology stands for. He appropriated the ideas, such as they are, from Ayn Rand, just watering down Rand slightly. The “social issues” bit is a red herring. The rich people pulling the Republican Party’s “right-wing” “conservative” strings have never really cared about “social issues” one way or the other. They care about money and power. “Conservative” or “libertarian” “social issues” are just bait to trick non-rich people into voting against their own interests. In short, to the extent that “on the right” means anything at all, “libertarianism” is as much “on the right” as anything could be. 2600:6C44:117F:F459:406D:7608:604B:FC3D (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: I believe that the article, although imperfect, is now reasonably neutral. Therefore, I propose that the NPOV tag be removed. What do people think?
— Hyperdeath(Talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous POV dispute was about a different issue.  Therefore, I've added a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" tag to the "Political commitments" section. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 10:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: There is now a facebook group dedicated to Antony Flew, so those interested in posting non-wikipedia discussion on Mr.Flew may like to look it up. I don't believe this is needing a mention in the article.Let's keep it NPOV, thanks folks.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook group

message: Placing the vast bulk of the article into a single section does not strike me as useful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My "thoughts" are already given above. You do not have a consensus for this change, so kindly cease and desist edit-warring to impose it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that it couldn't do with some 'tidying up' -- but I am saying that this should not be done as an overreaching unilateral single edit. And I'd suggest that the article needs division into more substantive top-level sections, not less (having only one 'Biography' is awful, two: 'Biography' & 'Atheism and deism' is only slightly better). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Comments upon my "specific recommendations"? Or are you just going to sit and wait until somebody else turns up (always a chancy proposition on less-frequented articles)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I eliminated the Death section after moving and formating the NYT obit into standard web cite.I don't support the removal of the awards; they may not be notable in and of themselves, but the organizations granting them presumably are since they have Wikipedia articles.SBaker43 (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I've changed my mind about a career section but still think that the awards should appear as a list, rather than a single paragraph. TM-86 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Hrafn; we don't have a secondary source for any of those awards, meaning they are probably insignificant. Huon (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structuring 

message: Although it is supported with a reference, when I checked this reference I found nothing that supports this claim.
So, I decided to create an account to edit this part and participate in Wikipedia's community.
Considering I'm new here, I can't figure how things work on here, but I found that there is a user named [Dwpaul] who retrieved this part again and asked gently why I had to remove this part, and if I have a question I can contact him on his page. But I couldn't find a message button or a comment button there to contact him and to tell him why I found this last part in 'converting to deism section' inaccurate.
The reference no. 26 leads to no clear back-up for this part, rather, something that looks like an email. It could be my lack of understanding how this other website work though. So, if anyone know where can I find what supports that part in this reference [no.26], or any other reference, I will be glad to get informed. Otherwise, I suggest removing this part. Even reference no. 25 leads to a not found page.
I'm reading his book now anyway, maybe I can find in it what supports this claim. Till then, if anyone can feedback, it will be appreciated.
Regards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migrant2light (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last part in Antony Flew's converting to deism where it talks about his views about Christianity and Islam 

message: 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) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: In the section Antony Flew#Controversy over his position, 2nd para. from bottom, there was this misquotation:
:Flew strongly responded to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter "extraordinary offensive,"'....
The last phrase above in the original source was  "extraordinarily offensive". That’s easy enough to check by going to the external link for that source (by Flew) in the footnote and doing a Ctrl+F[ind] search of  "extraordinary".  The phrase  "extraordinarily offensive" appears but not the misquotation above.#
So, how could the misquotation have persisted so long?  
Comments welcome.  
# The author of the phrase was User:Khamosh.  I located the phrase as occurring from Nov. 8, 2008 to today.
--Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrammatical misquotation that lasted from 2008-March 6, 2016 on Antony Flew page: why?  

message: 'he was friendly with the raelism'(sic)  Really? Evidence?
Notreallydavid (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to deism 

message: Since the Brexit vote is done I am hoping that putting this info here would not be too controversial. I understand that primary sources should not be used on Wikipedia but I wanted the feedback of others to know if we should or should not add information regarding this topic. I have a digital copy of a letter (https://archive.org/details/antony_flew_letter) that was written in 2005. This is the contents of the letter: 
"12 January 2005 Dear Peter ***** Thank you for your most friendly letter of January 3. I will put this on file. For the foreseeable future all my political energies will be devoted to a struggle with which my Deist heir, Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence would be 100% sympathetic it is the struggle to get my country out of the European Union - into which we have been betrayed by mediocre politicians." I was the one who censored the name of the recipient. There is a stamp on the letter so at least two copies of the letter should exist.  Nekdolan (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antony Flew about "Brexit" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antony Flew. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522225854/http://www.biola.edu:80/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm to http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030082703/http://www.biola.edu:80/antonyflew/page6.cfm to http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page6.cfm#8
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/minding_our_language.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Antony Flew. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page6.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antony Flew. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830092752/http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138 to http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antony Flew. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211132928/http://www.rfmedia.org/blog/index.php?id=4 to http://www.rfmedia.org/blog/index.php?id=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is quite obvious editors have stressed and emphasised that he is not Christian. We don't know this. Just because there is no evidence that he was Christian, is not evidence that he was not a Christian. Remove it :) 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:64C0:B2C6:AD1D:AA24 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts by editors to make it look like he was not a Christian

message: The usage of the skeptical-science.com blog as a source in the final paragraph of the 'Book with Varghese and authorship controversy' section appears inappropriate according to Wikipedia policies. My removal of this source has been reverted several times. While blogs are sometimes acceptable, in this case the author has no apparent claim to authority on the subject, nor are their claims repeated in any other reputable source. These claims appear to be wholly the unverifiable, speculative personal opinion of the author. No documentary evidence is given for any of the claims in this section beyond the author's speculative claim that Flew's arguments were 'crass' and therefore must not be his own. This is entirely unverifiable it is inappropriate that they be included on Wikipedia.76.97.77.25 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Additional claims? Because The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine clearly state the same thing as the blog does, that he was psychologically manipulated:
*
*--GenoV84 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the love-bombing and exploitation by christians, here's what Oppenheimer reports about that:
*--GenoV84 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Despite having replied to the anonymous IP multiple times that Blogs can be used as sources on Wikipedia (although they may not be the best choice), let's say that the anonymous IP is right and I am wrong. Even if that's the case, the blog is based on Mark Oppenheimer's investigation on the authorship of Varghese's book, which is not difficult to dismiss since the more reliable, published sources on the same article explain Flew's position and the conjob behind the authorship of Varghese's book quite frankly:
*
*
*
; Third opinion by Vaticidalprophet: 
There are a couple of things going on here, but the 3O I am ultimately inclined to give is that  has, though I would not say the correct interpretation of WP:BLOG (because it's so contextually dependent), the interpretation of WP:BLOG relevant to this discussion, and therefore  should use a different source for this information if one can be found, or omit it entirely if not. By the looks of it, GenoV84 has found other sources that include the information he wants to add in this article, and accordingly can use them instead (and should have done so in the first place). The IP's statement re. "Just because it follows the same line of discussion does not make it a reliable, verifiable, or meritorious source" is correct, and the reliable sources that make similar claims take precedence over the self-published opinion piece.
More generally, this looks to be a pretty heated argument with the potential to get nasty, which is unfortunate because you both seem to be very dedicated, caring people working in good faith. Importantly, the matter of "what is an appropriate citation for Wikipedia?" seems to be getting wrapped up in the issue of "what is the truth about this man's underlying positions and the statements he made towards the end of his life?", one of which is far more relevant to building an encyclopedia than the other. I think by the point vandalism accusations and block evasions are coming in, it's time to take a step back. I think you both have the opportunity to contribute well to the Wikipedia project (and to , may I recommend making an account? As well as all the other good reasons to, I think some near-future WMF changes may be seriously disruptive to unregistered editors), and that you also seem to be taking this dispute quite personally in a way it shouldn't be taken. Be kind to yourselves and one another. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog as source 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (76.97.77.25 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite having replied to the anonymous IP multiple times that Blogs can be used as sources on Wikipedia (although they may not be the best choice), let's say that the anonymous IP is right and I am wrong. Even if that's the case, the blog is based on Mark Oppenheimer's investigation on the authorship of Varghese's book, which is not difficult to dismiss since the more reliable, published sources on the same article explain Flew's position and the conjob behind the authorship of Varghese's book quite frankly:
*
*
*
; Third opinion by Vaticidalprophet: 
There are a couple of things going on here, but the 3O I am ultimately inclined to give is that  has, though I would not say the correct interpretation of WP:BLOG (because it's so contextually dependent), the interpretation of WP:BLOG relevant to this discussion, and therefore  should use a different source for this information if one can be found, or omit it entirely if not. By the looks of it, GenoV84 has found other sources that include the information he wants to add in this article, and accordingly can use them instead (and should have done so in the first place). The IP's statement re. "Just because it follows the same line of discussion does not make it a reliable, verifiable, or meritorious source" is correct, and the reliable sources that make similar claims take precedence over the self-published opinion piece.
More generally, this looks to be a pretty heated argument with the potential to get nasty, which is unfortunate because you both seem to be very dedicated, caring people working in good faith. Importantly, the matter of "what is an appropriate citation for Wikipedia?" seems to be getting wrapped up in the issue of "what is the truth about this man's underlying positions and the statements he made towards the end of his life?", one of which is far more relevant to building an encyclopedia than the other. I think by the point vandalism accusations and block evasions are coming in, it's time to take a step back. I think you both have the opportunity to contribute well to the Wikipedia project (and to , may I recommend making an account? As well as all the other good reasons to, I think some near-future WMF changes may be seriously disruptive to unregistered editors), and that you also seem to be taking this dispute quite personally in a way it shouldn't be taken. Be kind to yourselves and one another. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: In Political Philosophy the main interest of Antony Flew was his opposition to the concept of "Social Justice", i.e. the idea that income and wealth should be "distributed" by political authority according to a principle of "fairness". According to Antony Flew the concept of "Social Justice" leads to state tyranny and is contrary to the traditional concept of justice as to each-their-own. There should be a section on this - after all many of the articles and books of Antony Flew were on this subject - especially from 1980 onwards. Such works as "The Politics of Procrustes" and "Equality in Liberty and Justice".2A02:C7E:1CA8:CE00:7CD2:2D64:DF0A:6E1C (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Justice - the opposition of Antony Flew to this concept in Political Philosophy.