Jump to content

Talk:Pat Condell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePat Condell was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 20, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
April 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Neutrality dispute

[edit]

I wrote most of the article under dispute, and have been at pains to make it as neutral as possible. As well as quoting Mr Condell, I've also quoted his critics on the Berkeley Council, and the author Dinesh D'Souza. Everything in the article is backed up with citation, so I don't understand how saying this article has "Laughable neutrality, it almost needs a delete and start again" has any basis in fact at all. What is it based on? If these accusations aren't backed up, I would request that the neutrality dispute banner be taken down bingo99, 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article and I don't see problems with neutrality, this seems a long list of facts and deeds, no opinions offered. 76.20.226.239 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Jprulestheworld (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he received 'death threats' after posting anti-religious videos but there is no evidence to back this up. The claim of 'death threats' is often used as a kind of claim to legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatordei (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After watching his video the quotes use, taken out of context, do not stand for what he believes. As I know from watching his videos is very careful about how he criticizes religion, and take out of context these do not infer what is meant. Reading this article from the view of somebody who has no/little experience of his videos. I would say is a very narrow minded person, who is naive of cultural differences, yet I know this is not the case as he is normally very careful, and when criticizing something like head scarfs, I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt he would make such a generalized comment like that, which using the quote seems to infer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.138.110 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I highly doubt he would make such a generalized comment like that"

The Trouble with Islam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhN6CG1zCRc

Also of interest, a follow up video

Am I a racist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ZLXbKeL2U

bingo99, 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article seems ridiculously long for a minor internet figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjakarma (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"article seems ridiculously long for a minor internet figure" Why? All the sections of the article are valid and talk about things that deserve to appear on a Wikipedia, like the history of his career in comedy, and the controversy he sparked with his very widely-viewed videos. And anyway, I've seen much longer articles than this. Jprulestheworld

Currently the 2nd most subscribed to user on YouTube of all time

http://uk.youtube.com/members?t=a&p=1&s=ms&g=0 -

About the hits claims.

[edit]

Perhaps it would be wise to note that, while undoubtedly there are many who watched his YouTube videos in support of his views, there are a lot of people who watch it in deploration, and use quotes contained in the video as ammunition in debates. Members of anti-British National Party and anti-National Front organisations would be an example.

The article as is seems to give complete validity to his response to there being 1 million hits on The Trouble with Islam, without actually being a bit more skeptical about those statistics.

Ginger Warrior (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Ginger Warrior[reply]

It is something of a strawman to say objecting to stoning women to death or being executed for alleged witchcraft is wrong cause the BNP agree with you. Here's what Condell says, which would also have to go into the article

"This has got nothing to do with immigration. Let me make this very clear. I welcome immigration into Britain. I think that within reason I think its a healthy thing for the economy, I think its a good thing for the country. This is about religion, and only about religion. So to any white supremacist morons out there who think they can latch on to this video, in a way they've attempted to latch on to some of my previous videos. Go and take a p*** on a live electric rail. Cause I am not your friend, I am your enemy. And I am proud to be your enemy. Just as I am proud to be the enemy of every creepy islamo-fascist on this planet. Because you people are two sides of the same coin. And it's an evil, worthless, poisonous currency that I want nothing to do with." Pat Condell - A Word to Islamofascists http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

As for the hits, they can be counted online can't they. I know 'The Trouble with Islam' vlog is on a number of sites. Here's what what I've counted so far. Anyone know how to verify the complete total?

- bingo99, 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an earlier quote:

"Hi everyone, I'd like to say a couple of things here, firstly about my videos. I post them on various different websites, and I really do appreciate all the different messages and comments I get. But I could really do without seeing any more racist comments, if you wouldn't mind. I'm speaking here to the white racists, but this applies equally to the brown ones. I don't share your pathetic and obnoxious views in any way imaginable. So if you really have to show the world what an intellectual insect you are, please don't do it here. Because every time I see one of your commments, its like stepping in dogs***. And I don't want to have to follow you around with a pooper scooper. So if you could help me out and just put them somewhere else. Preferably up your own fundament, using the business section of a pineapple." - Pat Condell, Unholy Scripture http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt20PgKmcU

- bingo99, 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he refers to religion as a mental illness in his videos is it encyclopedic to note that he is a hypocrite based upon this quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.190.1 (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is certainly quite self-contradictory, I agree, but in most of his newer videos he says he doesn't care what people believe, as long as they keep it private and I think I believe that. In his early video where he referred to religion as a mental illness I think he was just exaggerating. I do wish he wouldn't be so misleading though. Oh and here's another quote:

"But I'm not saying the Bible can't be used for good. Of course it can. For example, if you were to take a nice, thick, hardback copy of the Bible, and insert it sideways up George W. Bush's born-again anus, that might do some good. I mean I'm no expert, but I'm sure that would do him a lot of good." What have I got against religion? Jprulestheworld (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC]

Why is considering religion a mental illness not compatable with anti-racism? It's a strong opinion, but racist? He considers people who base their life around faith over evidence nuts. A strong opinion, but racist? Contradictory? How exactly? He's not denying their right to believe whatever they want, he just has no respect for it. (bingo99) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called anti-religion. You can be against religion and not hate the people, but Condell is more along the lines of hate speech. If, according to many nations of our planet, someone is given the right to freely believe in their religion and are free to not have their beliefs discriminated against, what good has Condell done other than act like a child who can't accept that others are not along his lines of thinking? He claims that religious individuals are wrong and ignorant for pushing their beliefs down the throats of others but, isn't that what he's doing himself? Anyways, that's opinion. To be honest, I don't think this article is even notable. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You can be against religion and not hate the people" Where has he said he hates the people? He's thanked many from the Muslim community who've written to support him. "If, according to many nations of our planet, someone is given the right to freely believe in their religion and are free to not have their beliefs discriminated against" Do you consider someone objecting to the misogyny/homophobia/violence expressed by supporters of a belief discrimination? Do you consider an outright rejection/contempt for particular beliefs discrimination? I see it as part of a free society myself. "He claims that religious individuals are wrong and ignorant for pushing their beliefs down the throats of others but, isn't that what he's doing himself?" He's certainly polemical, but I've never heard him insist the law is changed so everyone agrees with him or threaten violence if they don't. The same cannot be said of the many religions he criticises. bingo99 12:10, 22 February 2010

his primary web site is disabled as of April 2, 2008

[edit]

Today I found that his primary web site http://www.patcondell.net is disabled. I'm not sure why. It could be as a result of threats to the hosting company since similar threats occurred relative to the main web site for the movie Fitna. That's a supposition on my part, but it's a strong suspicion based on what has been occurring lately relative to death threats going around the net to sites & people critical of Islam. I hope we hear more about why the site was suspended. cbean (talk)

Update on April 3, 2008: Mr. Condell states at http://www.myspace.com/patcondell that the site will return in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.60.64 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update on 19th april, 2008: Site appears to be working fine. Alastairthegreat (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I made a change to the article regarding a possible copyright violation of one of Pat Condell's videos 'Appeasing Islam'.

This video is available on BNP Internet TV, so far as I can tell, illegally, as Pat Condell has publicly stated on the FAQ page on his website that he does not support the BNP, and yet they are at the moment using one of his videos on BNP Internet TV. BNP Internet TV is powered by mogolus.com which requires that users import the video into the Mogolus system and also that they have the required copyright permission to broadcast the material and to allow Mogolus to broadcast the material.

I think this is an important addition to the Pat Condell wiki page. If it is important that YouTube has censored his video, it is also important that his fans know who is apparently illegally distributing his videos and that he does not support the BNP.

If you have any comments as to how this information should be presented, please discuss them here, otherwise I'll add the information to the page again. Thinkbeforeyoustink (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy really notable enough to deserve his own page?

[edit]

He's got a lot of internet fans, but I can think of many others who do too. Do they all deserve wikipedia pages? 92.11.96.240 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this argument was held above, and yes he does was the conclusion. 15 million hits and fans including Richard Dawkins and a Nobel Prize winner -bingo99 20:31, 11 February 2009

His videos have been published on a DVD and in his career in comedy he produced many published works, so I think that would make him notable enough. 85.210.99.12 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of his fans give him notoriety? And since when does being published on DVD give notoriety, since it doesn't take much to publish your own DVDs. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the fans or DVDs, but secondary sources. See WP:BIO. Rror (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth?

[edit]

This article was in Category:1951 births, but the lead states he was born on 1 November 1949. Assuming that's correct, I've placed it in Category:1949 births, but can anyone provide a source to prove this is correct? Robofish (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The Dutch Wikipidia also say's that Pat Condell is born in 1951. Someone needs to check this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.172.173 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pat Condell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
    • The last sentence of the lead echoes the first sentence of the next section which is OK, but looks clumsy. Consider reorganising the lead bringing the background sentence earlier in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • ref #6 [1] failed verification; I have flagged another that did not support the statement
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • ref #12 [2] is not a reliable source; ref #20 [3] is not a reliable source; I have flagged other dubious sources and dead links. Please note that youtube, facebook and myspace links should not be in ELs, please read WP:EL. The use of such or similar sites as references si not suitable as these are self published sources.
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • I don't think this article meets the GA criteria, too much reliance on self published and unreliable sources. I am not disputing the veracity, but merely following the guidelines. It may be that a shorter version of this article could pass muster. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6: I have commented it out it as I can't do anything with it on it's own. The quote can be found at [4] anyway.
  • Ref 12 was an authors home page, but the guardian source supersedes it, so I've removed it.
  • Ref 20 what is wrong with goofigure? I've added a primary source for that quote too.
The question is what makes it a reliable source? WP:BURDEN places the burden of proof on the editor introducing the source. It appears to be a bulletin board or forum, there is no indication of editorial policy or control and no indication that it is regarded as a reliable source by other quality reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be partially exempt from WP:EL due to Condell's internet presence and it being one of the main channels for his popularity. All links are official sources and are controlled by Condell himself and offers the material which is what originally gained him a lot of attention.
This review isn't a place to argue for changes in Wikipedia guidelines or policies - there are noticeboards for that. I am assessing againts those guidelines and policies in place at present. The subject's own website links to these so that is sufficient in ELs. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the Quarterly Theatre Review book source? The page number and details have been provided.
The url didn't link to the source. The dead tree reference and the OCLC which I added are sufficient. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the information that uses primary sources are also backed up by other third party sources too. This is to try and keep non-important and trivial information out of the article. All sources have access & published dates provided.--A pinhead (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is not a reliable source - please read WP:RS. Ref #45 is a dead link, liveleak and Myspace are not RS. Actions such as adding together statistics on video web sharing sources is orginal research and synthesis. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining on hold for a further seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video sharing sites are ok to source for views and other data Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Refencing_youtube says so. Adding views together and showing all details like access dates and sums is better than mentioning every view count on every video sharing website. And the dead link is also backed up by two other sources.--A pinhead (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review-Failed

[edit]

I have failed your nomination of this article for GA status, because the issues mentioned in the last review have not been addressed. Please improve your sources before re-nominating.

For the full review please see here.

Thank you, Brambleclawx 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth (2)

[edit]

Could anyone confirm his date of birth? There seems to be little consensus on this, judging from the pages in other Wikipedias (in chronological order):

  1. Spanish wiki: Nov 1, 1949
  2. French wiki: Nov 1, 1949
  3. Hebrew wiki: Nov 1, 1949
  4. Russian wiki: Nov 1, 1949
  5. English wiki: Nov 23, 1949
  6. Finnish wiki: Nov 23, 1949
  7. German wiki: Nov 1, 1951
  8. Dutch wiki: Nov 1, 1951

Considering he is a carbon-based bipedal life-form, I doubt that he has been born thrice. Or shall we simply vote for it? User:Brynnar/sig 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My search for reliable sources on his birthdate only found this 2006 timeout interview (already cited in article) by Michael Hay which had "is 56", making his birth year either 1949 or 1950. Tineout may have it wrong of course, but it's likely more reliable than various wikipedias. Condell's page here also has "first performed on stage at the age of thirty-two in a comedy sketch group called Mountbatten’s Plimsoll." If anyone could find sources for the dates this group was active, that might help narrow down the birthdate. 84user (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Editing

[edit]

I deleted the wikilink to Eliot Cohen as it looked like the original wikilink did not accurately connect to the Elliot Cohen cited. That is, it referred to someone not connected with the Berkeley Commission in question. Since then, I've corresponded with the city official responsible for the minutes of the commission. That person reported that their Mr Cohen did not use a middle name, and has since left the commission. Hence, I hope the wikilink will remain deleted.--S. Rich 04:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

English vs British?

[edit]

So if Condell is born in England, why not describe him as English? How does he describe himself? IOW, what is the rational behind the latest change?--S. Rich 04:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What a funny world people here live in. If this guy was born in Ireland, and is "Irish Roman Catholic", how does this make him English or British? Ausseagull (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean this change from English to British. He describes himself as a "biped carbon-based life form", and as far as I can see (and hear) avoids any mention of his nationality or where he was born. Accordingly, and after failing to find any source outside of wikipedia - not even a blog - I have just removed the contradicting and uncited mentions of a birth-place. I then added "Irish Catholic" lifted from the Time Out interview, but I feel that does not really determine either a nationality or a place of birth. If anyone has any more concrete information please add it, with a cite of course. -84user (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And ... I have just added Ireland as his birth place. That will teach me to always check the primary source. -84user (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously don't think Pat Condell identifies as Irish. In fact, I don't know what the hell he DOES identify as. He clearly does care a fair bit about Ireland and from his own words, has "Known a lot of Irishmen" (sic, Women too I guess). His "Irish Joke" video clearly came from being Irish-Born and growing up in England (he was probably repeating some of the jokes that were told to him as he was growing up). His nationality is a bit of a blank spot but when it comes to someone like Condell, I think it's safe to say it hardly matters. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that English-born makes no sense, especially in light of his claim to be born in Ireland, but I am now uncertain what is meant by "English writer" in the lede. That claim is cited to [5] but that does not include the word English, only the phrase "Church of England" (I just noticed in 2010 I added that cite for "born an Irish Catholic" but it has been misplaced to "English" since). Despite looking for reliable sources I've found nothing more than he was born in Ireland and brought up in England. If reliable sources say nothing more than this, then wikipedia should not synthesise (or worse, outright invent) claims. -84user (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in one of his older videos, he referred to himself as a Briton and often uses the term "we" when referring to the UK. Combine that with his growing up in the UK, I think that qualifies him as British? – Illegitimate Barrister, 09:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Small, Think Big comments

[edit]

"In April 2010, Condell urged his viewers to vote, as he was, for the UK Independence Party in the 2010 general election.[43][44][45]"

Either the wording is bad or it hints that Pat told his viewers to vote for UKIP, which he clearly didn't--he asked for them to "vote small, think big." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzodiazepines (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads-up, I have reworded that misrepresentation of his words. 84user (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for is not member of

[edit]

In this edit I reverted the statement that Condell claimed to be a UKIP member because I have listened to the cited Condell video ([6]) several times and I have never heard him claim to be a member. If there is a source that does support that claim, please add it with specific quote, and if a video or audio source, the time in that source where the claim can be heard. Wikipedia must be careful not to attribute statements not made by the subject. I have just now re watched the whole video and can re-confirm Pat Condell neither urges voters to vote for, nor claims to be a member of, UKIP. -84user (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Why is it in Italics? It should be changed. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed {{Infobox film}} from the article - it was invoking {{Italic title}} which in turn makes the article title italic. 84user (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Condell is a famous critic of Islam

[edit]

This article ignores the fact that Pat Condell is known primarily as a famous critic of Islam. Most of his YouTube videos chastise Islam and Western appeasement of Islam. He said "I oppose Islam, for the simple reason that Islam opposes me and everything I believe in." (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o) The chapter about UKIP should be replaced with a chapter about Islam.Quinacrine (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his comedy is characterized as critical of religion in general certainly describes it well enough. But to add "criticism of Islam" in the overall description (or even in specific instances) leads to BALANCE problems. E.g;, is he more well known as a critic of Islam as opposed to other religions or institutions? If so, RS is needed to support this info. With this in mind, I have removed some of the specific criticism of Islam material as it has cropped up. As this is a BLP, I think we need to be circumspect and only allow such material based on RS and CONSENSUS. – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to dispute? Almost all his videos are about bashing Islam and Muslims specifically (not "religion in general"). Why can't he be called what he is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.30.227 (talk • contribs)

It's important to note that Pat Condell's agenda has changed. pat started out by making videos, humourously condemning Religion in general, although notably omitting Judaism. It's only more recently he's become exclusively focussed upon anti-Islam broadcasts. As long as the article reflects this change of focus, which it should, there's no issue about "BALANCE problems". The user S. Rich who says "The fact that his comedy is characterized as critical of religion in general... " is not describing Pat's more recent work accurately at all. It is not comedy nor critical of religion in general anymore, it is anti_Islam rants. 95.148.226.209 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User S. Rich is correct in that wikipedia requires reliable sources (especially) for Biographies of Living persons (BLPs). We cannot use our own syntheses as sources (no original research). I looked for reliable sources in Google news and Google Scholar but I only found this possibly relevant article from Television & New Media, January 2013, but it is behind a paywall: [7]. The document link is doi:10.1177/1527476412453948 and the search result snippet starts "British anti-religious satirist Pat Condell". To obtain more details, maybe the whole article, someone (not me) needs to make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -84user (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

[edit]

Is it really necessary to have three of this guy's videos in the article? Seems to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTSOAPBOX to me... 86.168.93.171 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my! A reader might look at those videos!! Can we allow that???--S. Rich (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly advertising when the very reason he is notable is for his youtube videos. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing works?

[edit]

Last month Pat Condell released a second book titled 'Freedom is my Religion,' shouldn't it be listed in the works section?--SwaziSpring (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BB --S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --A pinhead (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he now?

[edit]

He is not in Ireland or UK, he must be in Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.212.5 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes that would be the most likely location for him given his current political leanings 95.148.226.209 (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Treating the question at face value, I have not found any reliable sources that indicate either his citizenship or country of residence. If anyone can find anything (not unreliable blogs nor original resaerch) please use it as a citation. Meanwhile I made this edit to remove two claims with no supporting sources. -84user (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording: "short monologues denouncing religion to a number of video sharing websites, consequently receiving numerous death threats"

[edit]

Why beating around the bush: He 99% critizises Islam and recieved the death threats from islamistic persons. Pat Condell stated himself that he was never threatened by christians in one of his videos. 77.180.203.212 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blog material

[edit]

We have citations to two personal blogs related to/by PZ Myers: ScienceBlogs and FreeThoughtBlogs. While Myers is an expert, these blogs are not about topics in which he has expertise, namely biology or wacky claims about creation. As this article is a BLP, we cannot include Myer's blog comments because they are WP:SPS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.--A pinhead (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

[edit]

Please remove Category:YouTube videos per the category documentation - the category is not for categorizing YouTubers. 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)  Done - Arjayay (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pat Condell. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add Category:Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Add Category:Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom because he clearly oppose Islam in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DD50:8C00:1921:4DE2:CBAF:1963 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

[edit]

Please update the link in reference #37. The valid link to the article is --> https://nl.express.live/islamofobie-is-een-rare-term-alsof-het-slecht-vinden-van-een-religie-een-ziekte-is-exp-193673/. Wording of the reference stays the same. Thanks! Ariane-newsm (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 22:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a libertarian category if he's against freedom of religion? 92.20.135.243 (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Condell&oldid=1213319390"