Talk:Madalyn Murray O'Hair

message: suggested improvements:
1. cover her relations with other atheist leaders.
2. cover her lawsuit over the TRUTHSEEKER estate.
3. cover the split with Anne Gaylor.
4. cover the LA breakaway
5. cover the Chicago breakaway.
6. cover her friendships with religious persons
7. discuss her publishing and writing efforts
8. discuss the radio and TV shows
9. discuss her debates
10. discuss her university appearences  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.19.60 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I laud her efforts at removing prayer from schools, what astronauts on duty do, military on  or off duty do or any other federal employee does on their down time is none of her business. At the time, the reading of a scripture of three large religions was a commonplace thing, now she removed the first amendment from those fine people, while her rights are paramount. As for the rest, one book is insufficient reference for multiple items, one needs more than one source that is verifiable, such as news sites and other reputable sources.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested improvements

message: This article is quite out of date though extensive, and could do with a little sanitisation as well.
There is now also far more follow-up information available about the O'Hairs' murders and murderers.
The esteem Madalyn is held in still today, in spite of (or somewhat because of) her outspokenness, by the American Atheists and atheists worldwide, needs to be mentioned - as does the fact she was somewhat ahead of her time in recognising the psychological dangers of religion.
218.214.138.11 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates Required

message: The phrase: "It cites a petition to the  FCC, which in real life was denied in 1975." is somewhat ambigious.  Does it mean that the FCC denied the petition, or denied that there WAS a petition?  Assuming it is the latter, I have changed this sentince to: "It cites a petition to the  FCC, which in 1975 the  FCC denied having received.".  If it is supposed to mean the former, I would suggest changing it to: "It cites a petition to the  FCC, which was denied by the  FCC in 1975." - Peter Darley
:It means the former. When a petition is denied it means it was turned down. The correct phraseology for the second case would be "a petition, whose existence was denied...". DJ Clayworth 06:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FCC petition 

message: From the article --
Murray called her son's conversion "unforgivable," and spoke of symbolically murdering him for what she viewed as a transgression against her: "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...He is beyond human forgiveness."
Does anyone have a cite for this rather strong statement?? - 6 december 2005
::It sounds so much like her that I've left it in, though it should be cited. Wyss 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it  and added it to the article. Wyss 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think rotten.com counts as a valid citation source. It basicly recycles anything it finds on the internet with no checking. DJ Clayworth 23:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a citation from a valid source: http://crimemagazine.com/ohair.htm Hi There 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The citation and source have now been integrated into the body of the article.Hi There 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT a valid source!!  The (very hostile) Crime Magazine article gives no direct source for the quote, but the context implies that it is NOT a quote from her, but instead a quote from her son William, whose memories of his mother all seem to be filtered through a lens of deep ideological and personal hostility.  Again, Crime gives no direct citation, but instead simply lists seven URLs at the bottom of the story.  Only ONE of those sources contains the second-hand, hostile, vaguely-remembered "quote", and it DOES in fact turn out to be Rotten.com!!  (Which, as has already been pointed out, is not a valid source!)  This "quote" should either be removed or clearly labelled for what is - at best, the tainted recollection of a hostile, ideologically-driven child.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is what it is. Everything posted on her page comes from sources close to her and also the facts spoken and done by Madalyn herself. Please respect that fact.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Not really, since I have never heard of any atheist hospital. While many hospitals are religiously owned.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that ignorant quote pretty much sums her up, huh? Like there are no religiously affiliated hospitals. 72.144.198.53 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote says nothing of the sort.  It simply says that, given the choice, the author would prefer that money be spent on improving health, rather than promoting religion.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, no atheist group has ever actually BUILT a hospital, whereas tons of churches have.  But don't let that slow you down. You TALK about building hospitals, after all, and that's kind of the same thing, isn't it? Carlo (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Okay, why your comment was not removed but mine was is beyond me.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repudiates her son: Cite? 

message: I just want to state that numerous edits by the following user introduce bad references, NPOV langauge. This article needs a lot of cleaning-up. It only needs to state facts, legitimate references. True, it is called an article but it has to be objective.
I removed something that said that Christians believe atheists are 'by definition' immoral. That is certainly not the case. It is true that a popular Christian position is that atheists are 'without moral foundation' - i.e. though they may act morally, they have no philosophical basis for doing so. Obviously atheists may dispute this, but that's not a discussion to have here. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Wyss 

message: I have changed the title of the section "American Atheists" to "The Founding of American Atheists And Later" as the the original title did not accurately what was contained in the section.Hi There 17:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Founding of American Atheists And Later

message: I know that this will prove controversial but it comes from a good source; from TWO good sources in fact. The original quote is a book from a very reputable publisher - Viking - and it was cited in an article which, although very much anti-O'hair, was written by a fellow atheist.Hi There 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little doubtful about this. One article referencing another book is pretty poor referencing. It may be true but I'd be happier if it were better backed up. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Found another reference . Happier now. DJ Clayworth 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First rate! Thank you for finding that reference! Hi There 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted Defection to the Soviet Union

message: It seems that the paragraph has been removed, but there is no explanation here regarding the reasons for it, so I have taken the liberty of restoring it. Although I understand that the fate of the coins is not an important matter in O'hair's biography, it is still nonetheless an bizarre occurence that really does deserve to be mentioned. If someone wants to note their reasons for the excision, I will be more than glad to discuss it further. Hi There 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "not an important matter in O'hair's biography" covers it nicely. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is not but there are biographical pages with "trivia" or "anecdote" sections with interesting yet not terribly important facts (and fables too;) the fate of the gold coins falls in that category of fact. It is such a bizarre occurence that it merits some mention. As the whole point of the extortion plot was to get those gold coins, a reader would be justified in thinking that Waters & Co had gotten them, unless told otherwise. And discussing the fate of the coins is not necessarily all that different from discussing the fate of David Waters, really.Hi There 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it quite informative, and am glad it was in there. The story would have felt half-finished had it been left out. Kenn (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Paragraph Concerning The Fate Of The Extorted Gold Coins

message: The hateful and ignorant comments left here by people who did not even know Madalyn O'Hair, or her family, only serve to illustrate the difference between people guided by reason and those who are not.  I knew her well, had the pleasure of working with her for a number of years, loved her -- she presided at my wife's and my wedding -- and I enjoyed her wonderful humor and down to earth personality.  The same goes for her adoptive (read abandoned) daughter Robin, who was a gem.  Also, Madalyn did not invent atheism or atheist activism -- it has a rich history stretching back even to Demokritus "the laughing atheist."  However, she was the first person to give atheists the courage to come out of their "closets" in large numbers and there would be no turning back, despite the sad, stupid, and occassionally violent bigotry of some religionists.  This entry does not do justice to her -- for instance, ignoring the impact of her landmark book "Freedom Under Siege" -- nor is it an accurate (leaving out that she earned a JD degree from South Texas College of Law) or well-balanced portrait, in general, relying heavily upon unsubstantiable rumors, specious sources (like Bill Murray, a man who abandoned his young family to poverty, and who showed up drunk and armed outside the Pacifica radio station I volunteered at in Houston, demanding that we "send out the bitch so I can kill her!"), and sordid police gazette table scraps.  All the talk about the socked away millions is such a joke, as both the family and the organization scraped by for many years on a trickle of donations.  Madalyn lived in a modest home, had a proletarian wardrobe, ate at taco joints, and adopted abandoned animals, yet she was generous.  If the money existed, she certainly wasn't showering on herself.  Repeating ugly slander only makes one person look bad - the writer.
--J-no 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is information missing from this biography, and you can cite sources, then feel free to add whatever you think is missing. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Atheistic fundamentalists 

message: I'm using this article as a reference for a paper I'm writing and I can't figure out who wrote the original article. Can someone help me out? 63.245.255.27 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Writer 

message: Several citation references need fixing to use the  ....  tag method. DFH 12:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need fixing 

message: I changed the "legend" heading to "urban legend" as it seemed a lot more appropriate to me, but when looking back at the history I see that it was "urban legend" originally and that someone had changed it to "legend".  Does anyone have any idea why? Esn 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legend/urban legend

message: I removed this paragraph of personal commentary, since Wikipedia has a rule against original research.
I will put it here so that if it turns out that it was just an improperly formatted quote from a third-party source, it can easily be restored:
O'Hair, like many others, had to steel herself for conflict. Consequently she was often perceived in the worst possible light because of her combative stances and actions.  The idea that she hated Christians is belied by her conduct on April 19, 1994.  As I walked past her office, she called my name in a croak that was hardly recognizable.  I entered her office where she sat behind her desk.  She pointed toward the television that was opposite her.  I saw the then-familiar shape of the Branch Davidian compound engulfed in flames.  Incredulous, I asked if that was the compound.  She could not speak, but nodded to indicate that it was.  I stood with her and watched the unfolding horror while she sat and silently wept for the dying Christians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristinaDunigan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal commentary 

message: I noticed that the caption and the first sentence do not agree with each other.  Which (if either) is correct?  Rklawton 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: An anonymous editor recently added a long paragraph to the criticism section. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it may be a bit of a problem that the criticism section is becoming as long as the actual article, so I'd like to ask this: Who exactly is Jane Kathryn Conrad, and why should someone care that she published a critical pamphlet which contains (from what I can see) a number of unproven allegations? Is her name mentioned in a news article somewhere as one of O'Hair's top critics? Esn 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point... deleting until such time as someone can give a solid reason why anyone should care what that person thinks. DreamGuy 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Due to a backlog it is no longer possible to give comment on ratings. Please put any comments/questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One did not make up the facts, but one MUST provide citations. When multiple claims are made, multiple citations should be provided, to further back up the claims. Else, I could cite the bible for everything under the sun, but utterly fail when it comes to FACT REPORTING, as I'd be using a faulty source for astronomy, physics, geology and many other sciences. However, the bible COULD be considered a basic field hygiene manual, possibly the first of its kind (but THAT would require multiple citations, if relating as fact.)Wzrd1 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Biography Rating

message: Poor Richard's was a charter church of the ULC. It is mentioned in both the book Modesto Messiah and on page 148 of the book The Atheist: Madalyn Murray O'Hair ISBN-10: 0814751725.  cited with 2 sources.  Any objections to re-adding the catagory? JDBlues 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ULC

message: From the article"
(William later publicly stated that her claims of his being a victim of violence were fraudulent; see below.)" 
I can't find the "below" do we want to put it in or take out the reference or do I just need to learn to read?LittleBrother 06:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  see the "Critism section, second paragraph and related references. JDBlues 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: William Denies Being Victim of Violence?

message: Just glancing in, but wondered where mention of Murray's writings were.  The bibliography didn't have any.  Didn't she write any books?  And surely she wrote essays.  Also, I didn't notice any mention of Paul Krassner's magazine, which made a big thing of Murray.  The Realist, I think it was called.  Krassner's view of her would be interesting, I think.
````a long-ago fan of Madalyn's  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.250.163 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murray's Writings 

message: I cleaned up some POV issues and removed a claim cited to a Geocities.com website. Since the 1960s years Christian groups claimed she was stealing money, but that does mean they were correct. In fact, detectives thought Waters bought into the myth, which is why he killed her. Lets use sources and let them do the talking. TYie34 (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is very POV

message: There are some snippets here and there that really don't sit well with me, but the following paragraph is quite blatantly not suitable for Wikipedia:
"O'Hair remained a polarizing figure into the 1980s. She served as "chief speechwriter" for Larry Flynt's 1984 presidential campaign, and continued to be a regular talk show guest.[2] American Atheists did a brisk business selling anti-religious books and trinkets, and she enjoyed some financial success as the group's CEO. However, her callous and unfeeling personality caused her to go through employees and "friends" like a hot knife through butter. O'Hair would flatter and coax someone into working for American Atheists or one of its satellite groups, then start to severely criticize him/her for petty reasons, then cut into his/her character viciously and publicly. Ultimately, O'Hair alienated almost every person with whom she came into contact, and failed to give her son Garth any set of social skills or ability to deal with people. The belligerence of the mother and son forced American Atheist chapters to secede from the main group, and by 1991 all local/state chapters were dissolved."
I dislike Madalyn O'Hair as much as the next guy, but come on...Metalrobot (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a bunch of changes; hopefully it's better now. If not, go ahead and put the NPOV warning back, and it can be dissected a bit more. 69.221.158.99 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I grew up hearing about her, my parents rather disliked her, due to her being a "troublemaker". But then, they disliked anything that went against ANY religion and especially disliked ANY kind of activist. That said, I read the article tonight, I came away thinking, "Thank you for getting forced prayers out of schools, but you seem to have been a quite disagreeable person if you don't like someone.", I'd even use the word harpy, for her reported outing of her murder's theft and criminal past, the latter being utterly uncalled for, as it was irrelevant to what he did to the organization.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Still not NPOV

message: This article says the group dwindled to nothing in 1991, yet the American Atheists article says it is current and named a new president in 1995. If anyone can find a source that explains the group's status in the early 90s, please add it. 69.221.158.99 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict 

message: The article states, "[i]n 1945, while posted to a cryptography position in Italy, she began an affair with an officer, William J. Murray, Jr. Murray was a married Roman Catholic, and he refused to divorce his wife."
By stating Mr. Murray "refused to divorce his wife," the article implies that whether Murray obtained a divorce was entirely up to him.  It must be remembered that, in 1945, there was no no-fault divorce.  On the facts presented, Murray's wife could have divorced him for adultery, but he had no ability to divorce his wife, at least not without her consent.
130.13.4.45 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this criticism to be the kind of thing that only people who weren't around in those times can assume. The way people tend to assume that Victorians hardly had any sex. There is a difference between the so-called rules and what happens on the ground, particularly in Roman Catholic culture, but even in supposedly inescapable codes like the law. Just because technically he shouldn't be granted a divorce, doesn't mean he wouldn't, if he would try. If he wouldn't even go to a priest to discuss it, she had every reason to be disappointed, IMO. In any case, I strongly disagree with any wikipedia articles being edited on the assumption that Roman Catholicism is a functioning, self-consistent organisation, and that any fact that might imply otherwise should be removed. It would be like saying, 'How could she have been angry at him for not being industrious enough, when everyone is aware that it ain't what you know it's who you know.' Okay, maybe true, but not even close to the point.--99.234.69.225 (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think priests come in to it. I'm pretty sure 130 was referring to a civil divorce Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with Mr. Murray

message: I think this page should be checked for neutrality. I do not think it presents an even remotely neutral point of view on the subject. Its author seems to have selected only negative information about Ms. O'Hair and left out everything good that she ever said or did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueroses2525 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you didn't bother to put those into the article, with citations from reputable sources, we can only assume such does not exist, hence is not included in the article. BE BOLD, but DO cite reliable sources that can be easily verified.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Suggestion to change wording in this article:  Under DISAPPEARANCE, a person is called "Garth" without identifying that "Garth" is the same person previously called "Jon Garth Murray" and "Jon Murray." It is confusing to the reader.74.235.234.71 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. I've changed all instances to "Jon" because that's the name used on the American Atheists website. justinfr (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is an encyclopedia article, not the AA website. It is customary to refer to adults by their surname; he should be referred to as "Murray" after the first full use of his name, or "Garth Murray" to distinguish him from his niece Robin Murray.Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Do we have any WP:RELIABLE sources saying he was known as "Garth", as the article currently claims? In the books and magazines I've seen, he's always referred to as "Jon Murray" or "Jon G. Murray". Muzilon (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Garth Murray

message: The first and last paragraphs of the Legacy section have zero citations.  The middle part of this section (about her son's conversion) really has nothing to do with her "legacy."  Should the whole thing just be removed until it can be redone properly? LarryJeff (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section is really bad 

message: I think it's pretty inaccurate to use the category of "religious leader" when we're talking of an ATHEIST leader!
Might want to change that!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.44.12 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use a more all-encompassing term for this category, such as "philosophical leader", "socio-cultural leader", or even "theological [position] leader" (since, although she might have said that atheists have "no theology", the denial or absence of belief in a deity could surly be construed as a theological stance, or at least a definitive answer/side to a theological position.  Afterall, there has even been some professed Christians who have held this position!173.23.8.168 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious leader?! 

message: One of the problems with doing a biography of MMO'H or a history of the SOS is that
most people do not think Madalyn is important enough for all kinds of historical detail, while those who hero-worship Madalyn would not believe the truth in any case.
Madalyn's assaults within the nonbeliever community are notable,
as they have been thematized by mainstream biographers and even newspapers.
If a biography by a recognized historian mentions MMO'H and her problems with other Atheists'
groups, that cannot be original research. I knew several people personally who were booted out of AA or had their membership renewals returned, merely because they were members of other (nonMadalyn) Atheist
groups. To me it is "notable" because it seemed important to Madalyn to fight with other Atheists.
Only the arcane editors of Wikipedia know what constitutes notability, neutrality, and nonPOV, so I
guess I will have to bend my will to their judgment.
My view is that an historical fact IS an historical fact, even if it is nonnotable.
Revert all the edits you want.
w. quine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinewill (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, edit away, but DO include citations. If something is removed without comment on the talk page, revert it and make a note of the reversion on the talk page. If it looks to become an edit war, get some of the admin types to arbitrate.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article doesn't need neutrality! 

message: He's a convicted felon who kidnapped, extorted money then killed the three members of the family.  Then killed his accomplice.  And was only sentenced to just 20 years, in Texas, of all places.  I know he died in prison but how the hell did he not get the death penalty?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.28.178 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Did David Waters Only Get 20 Years in Jail? 

message: Why, I am appalled to find that this article fails to note any filmed appearances like archival footage, and any animated shorts featuring her. IMDB lists some of them, but not enough, definitely not a reliable source. To this extent, I might take it upon myself to create such a section. This will be done to the zenith of my ability, but I may need assistance as far as organization is concerned. Yes, I am an atheist, I'm also not afraid to admit my belief that our very lives are the result of extra-terrestrial creations. But, forget about what I think. Madalyn, the most despised woman in the US, deserves it. That being said, fellow editor(s), is all that can really be said. Zarbon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringFlamer41 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking video and cartoon sections 

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) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Substituted at 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: It was a homicide not murder. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homicide not Murder. 

message: This a technical point, and could be made better by a locksmith.  There is no such thing as master key for particular type of lock.  Locks have to be keyed for a specific master key(s). For example in a pin tumbler lock with one master keying, the lock has to have additional pins that are put in there, generally, by a locksmith. This allows for two different keys to create a break in the shear line, so that the key can turn the core engaging or disengaging the latch or bolt. This part of the article about the thieves having a master key seems not be correct.  Anthony Norton 1962 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master key for the lock at storage facility where stolen coins were stolen again. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Madalyn Murray O'Hair. 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/20080118160820/http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/04-02-01/2001040207_s03_Waters.html to http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/04-02-01/2001040207_s03_Waters.html
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) 14:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Madalyn Murray O'Hair. 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/20120509052544/http://www.ericmetaxas.com/writing/essays/buzz-aldrin-guideposts-article-full-text/ to http://www.ericmetaxas.com/writing/essays/buzz-aldrin-guideposts-article-full-text/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414174202/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-m4.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-m4.htm
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) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Madalyn Murray O'Hair. 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/20071012072025/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/madalyn.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/madalyn.htm
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) 18:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is in :Category:Pseudonymous writers but I could't find evidence in the text that she published under a pseudonym. Did I just miss it? Pburka (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonym? 

message: It would be better to have an article titled: "Killing of Madalyn Murray O'Hair et al., 1995", rather than having so much detail about the kidnapping, killings, investigation and trial here. This is the customary way to treat such events. This material is quite different in tone and makes the bio article unbalanced. It could be summarized in O'Hair's bio article.Parkwells (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article unbalanced 

message: O'Hair v. Dr. Edward Bauman, Texas (aired in Austin), 41 minutes newly uploaded by David Hoffman.  I don't know how to add external links; please do so.  Thank you.
Stuart Gardner, aka granttarredus Granttarredus (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new link to her ‘60s TV debate