Talk:List of atheists in music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Frank Zappa[edit]

References are in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.43.98.2 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sakis Tolis and Jacoby Shaddix[edit]

I read here at both of the sources I mentioned either that they believe in the terrible-ness of religion, or that someone tried to convert them to Christianity, and that religion is controlling. Im adding these guys. By the way, my wiki account is non-openable, so letting u know, this is xXToTheMoonXx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.106.10 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no references in the entries, so I'm moving them here till someone comes up with a proper source:

I added the sources at the bottom of the page with a number annotation.

Sakis: http://www.tartareandesire.com/interviews/rottingchrist2.html

Jacoby: www.msopr.com/mso/papa_roach/qa_jacoby041105.html

Add it if I can't. - xXToTheMoonXx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.106.10 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

These guys probably are atheists. But I can find no explicit evidence of it.
For Sakis Tolis:
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=66483
"I didn't expect something like that from Dave Mustaine, because, you know, he's supposed to be metal — you know, 'metal band,' all metal," said Tolis. "I just feel sorry for him and for every new Christian with new ideas, because we think Christianity is the worst thing to happen in human history. This is a well-organized trick in order to control society, so when I see someone that's very much Christian, that's full of the system, I feel very sorry for him because he's not free. And of course, if you are a Christian who believes somewhere, I don't care. It's up to you to believe anywhere you want, but if you want to push your opinion to the others, then I have to feel sorry about you."
This is an explicit statement of dislike of Christianity, and an implicit statement of disbelief in Christianity. Not disbelief in god(s).
http://www.tartareandesire.com/interviews/rottingchrist2.html
"Yeah, he [Dave Mustaine] found our music offensive and has become a new born Christian or something like that. It's stupid, it's not metal, it's not freedom of choice. It is being said that we live in a democratic, free society so everyone has the right to do what they want.
Again, all this shows is that Tolis isn't a Christian. While I agree that it ain't likely, for all we know from the references, he could be a Muslim, Hindu or (the most un-unlikely) a Satanist.
For Jacoby Shaddix:
http://www.msopr.com/mso/papa_roach/qa_jacoby041105.htm
The lyric is like, "I am awake under this blanket of fear/And none of the people I see belong here." All this shit that?s fed to people through TV just keeps people scared and pacified with their fear. I don?t succumb to that. I?m thinking critically and that?s the first step in the right direction for myself. Several friends I hang with have a lot of the same beliefs I do. But at the same time we?re not trying to shove our political opinions down people?s throats. I remember when a friend was trying to turn me Christian. He was just shoving it down my throat and saying "oh you?re accountable and you?re going to go to hell" and this and that--it wasn?t very intriguing to me. We don?t want to be the band that states, "we are this and this is the only fucking way.
He is talking about political opinions, and a lack of interest in being force-fed both them and Christianity. From this, he might even be a Christian himself, just not of his friend's variety. Again, sure, it's unlikely that he's a believer, but this ref is far from definitive as far as disbelief in gods is concerned. Which is what we need, if we're to include these guys.
As I say, they probably are atheists. But these refs do not substantiate it without far, far too much reading between the lines -- which is not our job. I'd add 'em like a shot if we can find something more solid -- I'm hardly averse to finding entries, given that I have personally added a good third (by now, probably about half in fact) of all the entries myself. But interpreting what is tangentially implied is beyond what we are allowed to do.
Oh, and when adding refs, all you need to do is to put the people in the relevant alphabetical place in the list, and wrap the ref tags < ref> < /ref> (without the spaces) around the reference details. The numbering happens automatically.
Oolon (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

King Kerry[edit]

I have listed him at least 2 times and both times he has been removed. why is that? he is lead guitarist in slayer and is a very open atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullx42 (talkcontribs) 08:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it was unreferenced. If he's that open, it shouldn't be difficult to find it repliably reported somewhere, yes? That's what we need, third party verification. I'll take a look. Oolon (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Added, with reference overkill. Suggest working on your Google-fu :p :D Oolon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
But, I'd like to thank you for raising the matter. In looking King up, I found references for his fellow Slayers Lombardo and Hanneman, plus L7's Donita Sparks. Cheers! Oolon (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

David Bowie[edit]

Why is David Bowie listed when the source says that he's not quite an atheist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.33.162 (talk)

Well, it's partly a hang-over from when it was being proposed that these lists become a list of nontheists -- that is, capturing the stance with less emphasis on precisely which term someone prefers / preferred. But mostly because, from the context, Bowie is as near as makes no odds. Unless you've got something more recent, one has to assume that since his "couple of months" have long past, he's an atheist by now. :p Oolon (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bela Bartok[edit]

The great 20th Century composer Bela Bartok should be included here as well. In a letter to his violinist love, a Catholic who rejected him because of his atheism, he wrote in part "God did not create Man, Man created God..." (This is from his published letters, I think the quote is correct.)I admire him for sacrificing love for integrity.

I've split this out so it doesn't get overlooked. If we can get a proper ref for this, it looks good to go.
Oolon (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

161.53.129.162 (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bela Bartok almost certainly did not die atheist. One of his most beautiful movements is termed Adagio religioso (3rd piano concerto, II movement). He publicly converted to Unitarianism in 1916 and was even president of the Hungarian Unitarian Church. He should almost certainly be deleted fro the list. He was simply too eductaed a man to be an atheist :-p

Songs are not reliable sources for the composer's religious beliefs. Besides, there is nothing in "Adagio religioso" to indicate that Bartok believed in a deity. One can be a religious atheist. Yes, he converted to Unitarianism, but that is not a creedal religion. One does not need to affirm belief in God to become a Unitarian. See this source, which reads: "Béla Bartók Jr. later wrote that his father joined the Unitarian faith "primarily because he held it to be the freest, most humanistic faith." Although Bartók was not conventionally religious, "he was a nature lover: he always mentioned the miraculous order of nature with great reverence.""
Bartok joined Unitarianism because he valued its humanism, he was not conventionally religious, and he revered nature (tellingly, this article remains silent on any reverence for God).
Your last comment about Bartok being too educated to be an atheist is insulting and uncivil. You ought to retract it. Nick Graves (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Insulting and uncivil it may be, Nick, but I took it as just teasing. More to the point, it's fatuous and a manifest non sequitur that's easily refuted by a look at the parallel list of scientists. ;-) Oolon (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson[edit]

Why is he not listed here? He is quite clearly an Atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.17 (talk)

Because you haven't added him. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody bothered to add one after 4 years, eh? I went ahead and added an entry, with a reference (2005 interview on "Too Late With Adam Carolla"). Problem solved. WillieBlues (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Heri Joensen[edit]

I added myself to the list of atheist musicians, and I have since been deleted. I have now re-added myself to the list. If someone has reason to believe that I am not an atheist, then please write to me before deleting me again.

Heri Joensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heri Joensen (talkcontribs) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem being, how do we know that you are you (so to speak)? You could be anyone. I'm not doubting you, just that "I say I am" is not verifiable by an external source. If we could find an interview in a reputable paper, or a blog entry that's unequivocally by you, or whatever... as it is, how can it be checked by someone who doesn't know you? Sorry.
Also, I just did a quick bit of digging, and this interview is suficciently ambiguous to make your inclusion a bit dubious. Or at least, better references than that have been challenged before (eg the Bowie one, above). Oolon (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Added Heri Joensen with source and photograph. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Anderson[edit]

I was about to add the following, as it seems pretty clear to me what she's saying here, but thought I'd run it past the rest of you first.

[ref>" The Onion: Is there a God?
Laurie Anderson: Yes.
O: Do you want to elaborate on that?
LA: Well, okay, at the risk of being completely corny, it exists as a potential in every single person. That's what attracts me to Buddhism, because it's the only belief system in which there is no God at all. There is no big authority figure; there is no ultimate anything. You are God. And that's really terrifying. Suddenly, you realize, "Oh my God, that means I'm responsible, and there's nobody to grovel in front of, no one to blame, and no one to praise. I need to do this myself." That's almost more than anybody can take, but that's what I admire about Buddhism. " [1]</ref]

Whatever it is she's meaning, the 'god' in question does not seem to fit in the slightest with the God we're linking to on the main page as what atheists don't believe in. Typican atheistic Buddhism, it looks like.

Thoughts?

Oolon (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like vague pantheism. I'd want something more concrete, I mean, she specifically says "yes" to the original question. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. But then, there's her reason for being attracted to Buddhism, and the "no ultimate anything" and "You are God" bits. Which is why I asked  :-D
Oolon (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, and I'd agree with you anecdotally that she's an atheist, but it's more an interpretation of her mincing New Age vagaries rather than verification of her beliefs. (Ahem, sorry, my prejudices are showing.) --Closedmouth (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Hanneman and Dave Lombardo[edit]

How do you know that Hanneman and Lombardo are atheists? This is completely false. Another source told me that Lombardo was raised Catholic as well (most Hispanics are predominately Catholic, I'm not sure) and there's nothing on Hanneman. In another article, Kerry King (very open atheist) mentioned, "I know that Tom and Dave are both religious people. Just goes to show you that grown people can be in the same band and have very different views".

Cool. Let's see these sources then. Till then, the one we've got looks good enough. Oolon (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And I'll add: whether they are atheists or not will be decided by reliable sources. So will whoever keeps editing the quotation from a source damned well stop doing so. If you have evidence the quote is incorrect, fine, show it. But do not alter -- and so deliberately misrepresent -- the source we already have. Oolon (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Paula Steel of Royal Treatment Plant[edit]

Here's a ref for her, if an when she gets her own page. Looks like the band, at least, should be getting one soon:

" Now categorically an atheist, Steel says religion has been expunged from her life. "I'm completely removed from it. I find I don't really broach it when I come home. My father still preaches and they are very strong in their faith, and that works for them. For me, it either is or it isn't. Even my friends, who have an easy, convenient relationship with religion, I find it difficult to relate to. "<ref)Andrew Murfett interviewing Steel, 'High hopes for verve of Steel', The Age (Melbourne, Australia), May 15, 2009, Entertainment Guide, Pg. 7.</ref)

Oolon (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mick Jagger[edit]

Second opinion please. Someone's removed Jagger's entry, which was:

  • Mick Jagger Kt (1943–): Golden Globe-winning and two-time Grammy-winning English rock musician, actor, songwriter, record and film producer and businessman, best known as the lead vocalist and frontman of The Rolling Stones.(ref>"Like most English people I'm not a great believer. I've read Richard Dawkins' book and it's very persuasive. I'm more in awe of the universe and that's not really a belief in God. It's a belief in something. I don't have belief in the Holy Book. I don't think many English people do. My parents' generation weren't religious either. They were the rebels." Mick Jagger, interviewed by David Lister, 'Mick Jagger: Why he likes hard work and thinks his parents' generation were the real rebels', Independent, September 28, 2007 (accessed July 15, 2008). (The Richard Dawkins book on the subject is The God Delusion.)</ref)

The remover's comment was:

"blogs are shitty sources and saying your not a great believer is not the same as saying your not a believer"

The point about blogs may (or may not) be valid, but this is not from a blog; it's on the website of The Independent, a serious and well-regarded British broadsheet.

But the bit I'd like another opinion on is whether there is too much reading between the lines needed here to justify his entry. I say no (well I would, since I added him ;-) )

The question is, if someone does not believe in god(s), they qualify. But just how explicit must they be?

Here we have Jagger saying (1) he's "not a great believer" "like most English people". Yes, that needs more qualification: it leaves a loophole for some belief. But then it gets qualification: (2) He's "in awe of the universe and that's not really a belief in God". Furthermore: (3) he definitely doesn't believe in the Bible, and his parents "weren't religious either".

But the clincher is that (5) he says he's read The God Delusion and found it "very persuasive". To be persuaded by The God Delusion is, I would have thought, to agree with it, that god(s) do not exist. That goes beyond the passive, weak-atheist simple lack of belief. Note too that he bothered to read it, which also undermines a weak-atheist position (at least by the time he'd finished it and had been 'very persuaded'). Remember that Dawkins states in the Preface that "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down" (and Jagger wasn't religious to start with).

Taking those things into account, the "I'm not a great believer" line makes no sense if you take it literally, as in "I'm not a great cook", meaning he does it, just not very much or well. It has to be (typically English) ironic understatement. As an opening, subsequently-qualified comment, it'd translate into American as something like "I'm not big into all that stuff".

Well there you go. As an Englishman reading this other Englishman's words, it is patently obvious that he's more than atheist enough for inclusion. But, I admit that one needs to know what he's talking about (and how people talk) to see that fully. So, I throw it open to the floor.

More generally, it is a problem we have here with these lists. A passive, never-thought-about-it-much weak atheist can say the magic word and get included like a shot. But a more thoughtful comment from someone with no belief, hedged about with philosophical caveats, can struggle (eg Attenborough and others who take 'atheist' as an assertion of absence rather than absence of belief), and people who, like Jagger, don't say it outright can get pulled by the well-meaning.

Over to the rest of you. I'll put him back in a couple of weeks if nobody can come up with a reason not to.

TTFN, Oolon Oolon (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Gosh, forgot all about this. Well it seems folks have had rather longer than a couple of weeks to disagree (four years and four months, to be precise), so back in he goes. Oolon (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the following: (1) the lede to this article "This is a list of atheists. Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as atheists." (2) This instruction: Talk:List of atheists in music#Reminder:_Agnosticism_and.2For_non-practice_of_religion_is_not_atheism. (3) This instruction: Talk:List of atheists in music#Adding_individuals_to_this_category_may_be_in_violation_of_several_WP_rules_and_guidelines. Jagger has never stated "I am an atheist" or "I do not believe in God" or "I do not believe there is a God". Those are the three criteria for inclusion in this article. This article is not a "list of musicians who are not great believers and who find Richard Dawkins' book very persuasive". Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

John Lennon?[edit]

Shouldn't John Lennon be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Legacy (talkcontribs) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

He was in the list at one point, but the trouble is, no one has found a reliable source for him being a nontheist. He was anti-clerical, certainly, but that alone is not enough to include him. Nick Graves (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

..."and no religion too", can it get any more obvious than that? I think real atheists have absolutely zero need to even discuss atheism, because the idea of god is absurd and ridiculous in a first place, I can tell you that from my own experience like a true atheist, who don't even think about god or anything related to it, because if i would, i could also be thinking and talking about millions of other made up entities and if we go there. you can make up new and new fairytales daily to think about and contemplate, which is again - ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.119.248 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cute rant, but no it's not "obvious". If a person makes statements against religion, lyrically or otherwise, that still doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't believe in deities. And remember that that's the sole definition of atheism: not believing in any deities. There are plenty of people who don't subscribe to a particular religion but certainly aren't atheists either, as well as some atheists who might practice a non-theistic religion. Regardless, until some reliable source shows up saying that Lennon didn't believe in deities, he can't be legitimately added to the list. WillieBlues (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

John Lennon’s listing on celebatheists.com Is the interview source linked to there reliable? MTC (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephin Merritt[edit]

Source "But I’m a militant atheist and an anti-religious crusader. I urge everyone to leave their religion immediately." Add? --S-man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.110.70 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The source seems reliable, he says he's an atheist, and he's a notable person. Seems a perfect addition to me. Go ahead! Nick Graves (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Strauss[edit]

I´m not sure about his inclusion in the list. He was certainly not religious in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, he did believe in some form of creator. Check this book and tell me what you think.--Knight1993 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Myles Kennedy[edit]

Myles Kennedy has stated that he is an Agnostic, but has never stated that he is an atheist. In his words, he is "Somewhere in the middle, between a Christian and an atheist." Unless you can give a valid source saying that he identifies himself as an atheist, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.83.189 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like he has no clue what the term "agnostic" means, then. It's not some sort of half-way point between Christianity (let alone theism) and atheism. Does he have a belief in a deity, or doesn't he? WillieBlues (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick Cave[edit]

Certainly not an atheist, a lapsed/disillusioned Christian at best. See his main article for cited quotes. Removing him from this list. 87.119.167.97 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't believe in an interventionist god, so is most probably a deist, but I have no source for that. I am ok with your change. SkyMachine (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bjork mentions atheism and more atheism....[edit]

Björk is an atheist, I would recommend adding her to the list. She tries to state this to the public indirectly, and directly multiple times, but its hard to pick up on.


"If I get into trouble, there’s no God or Allah to sort me out. I have to do it myself." http://www.ffrf.org/day/view/11/21/ http://www.abc.se/%7Em8996/bjork/interviw/hotpress.html


"I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists." http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Björk


"I think religion is a mistake - I'm exhausted by its self-righteousness. I think atheists should start screaming for attention like religious folks do. We should go and kill thousands of people like they do as well. OK, maybe not." http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2011-07/06/gqa-bjork-interview-volta-biophilia-swan-dress Other Sources: http://www.michaelnugent.com/best/famous-atheists/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-02/world/ireland.blasphemy.law_1_blasphemy-law-religion-irish?_s=PM:WORLD


Also, people say that in fact she is not an atheist because of what she said [http://www.amazon.com/Bjork-Inside-Bjrk/dp/B00009RGC8 in a 2003 interview], where she states that she was an atheist before recognizing her interest in nature. I'm not going to debate the definition of atheism, but she doesn't state any belief in gods, and that isn't clear or recent enough to make it justifiable to leave her off this list.


Prokofiev

Prokofiev was a Christian Scientist, not an atheist. The citation used does not cite anything about his atheism, rather, mentions his father's atheism briefly. I also think that the sentence used to describe Prokofiev (very popular for his music) is... stating the obvious a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.197.253 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Agnosticism and/or non-practice of religion is not atheism.[edit]

In order to classify someone as an atheist on this list, we need to have direct quotes of them stating "I am an atheist" or "I do not believe in God". Secondhand and thirdhand reports will not do, because they are too often misrepresented, misremembered, or downright inaccurate/biased. In the absence of any direct proof that either Jerome Kern (guilty only of being a non-practicing Jew) or Giuseppe Verdi (merely an agnostic) ever stated they were atheists or did not believe in God, I am removing their names from the list. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But did you bother to read the Talk section right here on this page about Mick Jagger? If he had only said he's "not a great believer", then of course that isn't enough. But since he finds Richard Dawkins's book (which in context can only be The God Delusion) "very persuasive", how are his comments not sufficient? I appreciate the need for jumping through hoops -- I've been doing this for years, and as you can see, have rejected many entries myself -- but I am unsure how Jagger's comments, taken as a whole, do not amount to more than mere disbelief. In being "very persuaded" by Dawkins, he is actively rejecting gods (see that section for more detail). We're back to 'magic wordism' again; Jagger's meaning and actual position couldn't be plainer. No? So I'm putting him back in. Oolon (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Waters[edit]

Roger Waters is not an atheist:

http://www.rogerwaters.org/25/onlineint.html

From and MSN online chat in 2000

still_waters : Do you believe in God, and that it was destiny what you achieved, or do we control our destiny?

Roger: No, I don't believe in fate. There is something in the organisation of natural history, and in history itself that leads me to suppose that there is much more out there than we can comprehend. When I say out there, I'm not sure that it means in here... I don't subscribe to any religious dogma, but I'm closer to believeing in God than I am to being agnostic. I believe in the idea that there are matters that are spiritual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwhite999 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The source you cited is from 2000. The current source is from 2008. Please find a more recent source. Ninmacer20 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding individuals to this category may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines[edit]

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.

Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact.

PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING
WP:CAT Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through action. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content
WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.
WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article
WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts
WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)
PS
These may be furthermore of use in view of the questionable quality of the list.
WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".
WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!
Pgarret (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

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) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Brahms[edit]

Scholars simply describe Johannes Brahms as agnostic. But it is implicit, specially from Antonín Dvořák's account, that he was an atheist as well as agnostic.

Is it safe to add him to this list? --isacdaavid 01:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No. No interpretation allowed. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Related question: on what grounds is Béla Bartók included then? He joined Unitarianism at the end of his life, and the case that he was still an atheist can only be defended through interpretation of some muddy sources.--isacdaavid 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; removed. I'd say at least 20% of the entries in this article are inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of atheists in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of atheists in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of atheists in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)