Talk:Charles Bradlaugh

message: A documentary I'm watching on the BBC claims that Bradlaugh finally got to take up his seat in parliment because a sympathetic Speaker of the House let him affirm before any of the other members - thus there were no MPs sworn in who would have the authority to challenge his affirmation. I thought it was an interesting bit of legal trickery, anybody know if it is true? --Bob the Pirate 19:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I never noticed the mistaken Tower of London line in the article before.  It was indeed the clock tower - I've changed the article accordingly.  Bradlaugh certainly finally got to take his seat thanks to the action of a new speaker. Don't think I've heard of this specific manoeuvre before, but it seems plausible.  --Dannyno 13:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been reading the report of the proceedings in the Times of Jan 14 1886.  There is no indication there that legal trickery was involved, or that Bradlaugh was allowed to affirm before anyone else (affirmation wasn't available, of course, in any event). The Speaker merely observes that the resolutions of the previous parliament are void, and that he has no power to prevent anyone from taking the oath if they present themselves to do so, but that they do so subject to "whatever risks may attach to him in a court of law."  So the BBC are probably wrong. --Dannyno 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity, it was a nice idea. Bob the Pirate 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be worth investigating if the BBC's researchers have been influenced by the reporting of the event in the Northampton Mercury. In my opinion, both the pro and anti-Bradlaugh Northampton press had a tendancy to sensationalise anything and everything to do with Bradlaugh, for better or for worse. If any wiki has access to the newspaper microfiche's (as held in Northampton Central Library) it would definately be worth further investigation. McGonicle 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, maybe.  But maybe they just made what is a not uncommon mistake.  The article doesn't need to do anything other than give the correct information, it doesn't need to discuss the mistakes (unless it's a really significant mistake about Bradlaugh's life, which this isn't). --Dannyno 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The parliamentary section has been amended and a bit now reads:
 
"Two years later, in 1888, he secured passage of a new Oaths Act, which enshrined into law the right of affirmation for members of both Houses, as well as for witnesses in civil and criminal trials."
I'm almost entirely certain that this is misleading, but I've not changed it because I want to check.  There was in fact an earlier act (1869?) allowing atheists to give evidence in court, and it was to that Bradlaugh appealed when first asking to be allowed to affirm (the request denied, of course).  His 1888 act may have consolidated all the legislation but it didn't originate the right to affirmation in court, just for parliament. --Dannyno 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've established that the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870 in fact gave atheists the right to affirm in court (but not in Scotland, and there were other imperfections).  I shall change the text of the article to try and make this clear. --Dannyno 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: oaths act

message: I was impressed and interested that a pub I'm soon going to visit in Northampton is named after this prominent local atheist (Google Maps link). I added to the article that there's a pub named after him, because it's almost as much of a tribute as the statue that's already (rather clumsily) mentioned. And pub names (at least the more unusual/unique ones) can be an important indicator of local history. My edit got quickly reverted. I'd like this fact back in the article but what do people think? Cheers. Georgethe23rd (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not notable. The pub could easily go out of business or change its name next week. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pub names are notable, but the names of pubs may not be notable.  You've just misunderstood what the Pub names article is actually doing: those names are not of particular pubs, but common or significant names requiring explanation.  Having said that, while I agree a particular pub is not notable, the fact that places in Northampton are named after Bradlaugh may well be notable.  You could say: "Various landmarks are named after Bradlaugh, including a pub, Bradlaugh fields (?), etc etc" --Dannyno (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The current sentence is much better. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pub 

message: :Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert. 
:(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, 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.
: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) 21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, you're wrong - and also becoming extremely irritating by cut and pasting the same messages everywhere.  I agree with 95% of what you say, but not with your opinion that "Religion: None (atheist)" is either wrong or unencyclopedic.  It does not purport to claim that atheism is a religion - which it clearly isn't - but it does provide the reader with the additional information that the subject identifies as an atheist.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

text: A centralised discussion on this point is taking place at Template talk:Infobox person.   Further discussion should take place there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While having the editors of this page join the centralized discussion is desirable, I am not comfortable with asking them to not discuss the issue here. The consensus in every centralized discussion so far has favored my position, and I don't want to be seen as forcing my opinion on the folks who have been editing and improving this page. I think this should be a decision made by those who have built this page up, not by an outsider like myself or Ghmyrtle who has never shown any previous interest in this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that I have shown no previous interest in this page is refuted by this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles Bradlaugh. 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/20160304110022/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36266/36266-h/36266-h.htm to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36266/36266-h/36266-h.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331224904/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30200/30200-h/30200-h.htm to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30200/30200-h/30200-h.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330005733/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36267 to http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36267
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) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles Bradlaugh. 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/20080416094558/http://www.secularism.org.uk:80/charlesbradlaugh.html to http://www.secularism.org.uk/charlesbradlaugh.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160924141730/http://www.bradlaughfieldsandbarn.co.uk/history-of-park.html to http://www.bradlaughfieldsandbarn.co.uk/history-of-park.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416094558/http://www.secularism.org.uk:80/charlesbradlaugh.html to http://www.secularism.org.uk/charlesbradlaugh.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011220112/http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/Leisure/Libraries/Studies/othersc.htm to http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/Leisure/Libraries/Studies/othersc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918092447/http://www.andrewwhitehead.net:80/documentaries.html to http://www.andrewwhitehead.net/documentaries.html
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) 21:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On a point of information regarding "Born in Hoxton (an area in the East End of London)" - Hoxton isn't in the East End of London, never was, never will be. I have no idea who thought it was. Hoxton is further west than the Tower of London. Perhaps someone would like to remedy the wording. JohnHarris (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in Hoxton 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Bradlaugh. 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/20070325184033/http://www.tbcs.org.uk/charles_bradlaugh.htm to http://www.tbcs.org.uk/charles_bradlaugh.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) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Bradlaugh. 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/20151223160643/https://charlesbradlaughsociety.wordpress.com/about/ to http://charlesbradlaughsociety.wordpress.com/about/
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) 08:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Hughes debate" -- which hardly seems to belong in the Introduction of this article, even if it were verified -- is not a legitimate reference, but an undocumented anecdote made by an unnamed third party in a conversation with the religious leader who wrote the guest newspaper OPINION column this dubious incident is being "referenced" with. It is, quite literally, anonymous hearsay, from a hundred years later. 2604:CA00:1F8:BCC:0:0:26F:7DE1 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference given for the