Talk:Ben Affleck/Archive 1

Priorities?
It seems like far too much of the page of an actor is devoted to his political dalliances. I think we need both more material about his acting, and less about his politics. In fact, I'm going to work on that right now, I think. User:Dan Moore 15 Oct 2005

I think since he has expressed a possible ambition to run for Congress that his political activites are relevant.

I'm on the other side politically from him on a lot of issues-- but in fairness to a fair man, I think this article is not unbalanced in all it's political coverage.

71.208.207.189 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

cleanup maybe?
I definately think this article needs to be cleaned up, plus a few more facts added. In my oppinion, the whole article needs to be re-written, or at least majorly cleaned up. Anyone else think so? mysekurity 21:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2006 Senate race
According to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601991_pf.html ben Affleck is considering a run for US Senate in Virginia in 2006, against Senator George Allen (R).

I took out the "star" reference in the final passage of his the political activism section. While George Allen is high-profile in his party, he's no "star," (i.e. McCain and Giuliani) and shouldn't be represented as one.

Politics
Say, do we really need such a monstrously huge section tracking every single thing he said during the 2000 presidential race? Maybe a removal of all those quotes is due for (and they probably need to be sourced, too) JackO&#39;Lantern 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Medical
Should consider inserting some information on his stint in rehab for "alcoholism". 22:57 10 Sep 06

Should we also talk about rehab for his migraine? Sheesh, why not talk about when he was treated for a stubbed toe in Albuquerque? Why is the migraine reference there? 69.242.196.134 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)rafael 23:36 22 Sep 07
 * Agreed. The fact that no reference is cited is reason enough for deletion. Going ahead with it.Matt Gerber 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Directing Debut
Data needed on his directorial debut Gone Baby Gone. 22:57 10 Sep 06

Birth name
This noticed this edit summary: "No proof that he was not given his father's surname, and especially not hypenating the names in the incorrect order. Both Chris and Ben only have one last name: Affleck."

His California Birth Index record says he was born as Affleck-Boldt, not just Affleck. That, and there is no "correct order".--Fallout boy 05:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone remove the reference to there being an extended family by the name of Auchinleck because it make it sound as if Ben is related to the Army officer. Auchinleck is a very very common name in Scotland and not everyone who has it is related. Also, not everyone who has it comes from the town of the same name nor do they necessarily have any connection to that town (I should know, I'm from the town next door). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.85.195 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How tall is Ben Affleck?
How tall is he? Londo06 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin
I just noticed his middle-name: Géza. It seems to me, that this name is archetypical Hungarian, yet the page is not categorized into the Hungarian-American category. Can anyone clarify on this point? Mulder1982 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Boldt' doesn't sound Scottish or Irish (currently the mentioned ancestries), so I suspect the page doesn't have the full picture--MartinUK 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Boldt' is German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish ancestry
The Affleck ancestor is most likely Robert Affleck (1863-?) of Oakland, California who was born in Scotland. He appears in the 1930 US Census. Géza must come from the Boldt side. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Affleck interview with Jon Stewart
Error in article. Gone Baby Gone is his directorial debut. The incorrect information in Wikipedia said it was his third film he directed. This must be where Jon Stewart got his misinformation when he interviewed Affleck and told him he had directed before, and Affleck said it was his directorial debut. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd like to think the Daily Show went a little deeper than Wikipedia for its research. Alexsanderson83 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually Wikipedia isn't so glaringly wrong. It took me three days to fix the information since I saw the interview. It took me seeing the movie to go to his biography here. Excellent movie, I thought it was over at three points in the film. The plot is fatally flawed, there were much simpler ways to achieve the outcome the protagonists desired. The film is excellent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be used as a place to review movies...Others forums can be used for that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.38.87 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion
The link for the source where Affleck states he is a "lapsed protestant" is broken, I can't find it anywhere. Can somebody please provide another source or edit.Bjoh249 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney
The film I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney, is a real film that Affleck directed, and is listed on IMDB. It's been removed from the article a couple of times now, so I'm making a note about it on the talk page in case somebody else decides to skip bothersome steps like fact-checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.134.244 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB is considered not to be a reliable source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LMAO. Fine.  How about Entertainment Weekly?  Is that a good enough cite? .  "IKMLWHHOAMHANIHATPDWD" was Affleck's directorial debut as a student.  That is a fact, as even a cursory google search will reveal.  If you just don't want to include it in the article, my advice is to try arguing that it is non-notable. 64.241.37.140 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whereas Rotten Tomatoes IS ?! IMDB is edited more strictly than Wiki when it comes to adding of film titles. IMDB has a strong affiliation with the movie studios (even if it is perhaps only because Amazon shifts millions of their products) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.7.13.110 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is IMDB.com not a reliable source? That is laughable!  It is the only comprehensive cinematic reference source available to the general public.76.251.252.235 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since forever. Large parts of its contents are user-submitted and not clearly vetted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

← This was added again, without citation - I removed it, based on this discussion, and suggested that consensus be obtained, and good sourcing provided, before re-adding it. I have not looked into this, don't know if it is legitimate, and don't have a strong feeling about including or excluding it, other than to say that if it true and properly sourced it might more appropriately belong in the text as part of his education or early work - the filmography would make more sense, in my opinion, as professional works, not a student short if that is what it was. But in any case, just adding it again without addressing issues raised here, and without citation, is not the way to go. Tvoz / talk 18:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the above discussion is a good example of (allegedly) commercially-motivated censorship in Wikipedia. It seems obvious (to me) that somebody was paid to remove the mention of "IKMLWHHOAMHANIHATPDWD" from the wiki page, and would keep removing it regardless of any evidence. This started to happen few years ago, all over the Wikipedia, and it seems now that most censorship in Wiki is in fact a work of numerous paid agents. Please excuse me for this (purely theoretical) speculation. Tiphareth (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of WP:RS, so there is no doubt about reinstating it. Paid agents should be warned and blocked if necessary. End of story.
 * As for IMDb, please read this discussion. We don't use it as a source for trivia and such, but if a movie is listed there it definitely exists, and its credentials are reliable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia as a reliable source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Killed_My_Lesbian_Wife,_Hung_Her_on_a_Meat_Hook,_and_Now_I_Have_a_Three-Picture_Deal_at_DisneyEaseltine (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia itself, no. The sources in that article if they are reliable, yes. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   State of the Union   ‖ 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course...Easeltine (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just putting it out there that IMDB has professional editors who decide what user submitted content is approved and goes into the system. Unlike Wikipedia....Trillfendi (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry
Scottish and Irish? Boldt is a German surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.207.47 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Poker Hands
I've heard rumour that Ben Affleck's favourite Texas hold'em hole-cards are Ace-King suited, but I can't find reference to this anywhere and I need to cite it in the List of Poker Hand Nicknames page. Anyone any ideas?NinjaKid (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if there's a source, that information is trivial and should not be included in the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's trivial to the Ben Affleck page, but it's useful information to the List of Poker Hand Nicknames page. NinjaKid (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Questioning his moms name in this article.
I read his parent's names in this article. I met his mom once and know *of her* as "Chris" but I have no idea if it is short for maybe: "Christie", or "Christine", or "Christina", etc., etc. but as the article currently reads he's the son of "Christopher" and Timothy? Is that really his mom's full name?

(quote) Affleck was born in Berkeley, California, the son of Christopher Anne "Chris" (née Boldt), a school district employee and teacher, and Timothy Byers Affleck, a drug counselor, social worker, janitor, auto mechanic, bartender, and former actor with the Theater Company of Boston.(end quote) CaribDigita (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is short for Christopher, please see the sources given: According to Harvard Reports of Christopher Anne Affleck, Middlesex County Land Records, and the birth record of Casey Affleck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

filmography
I added his work on television and the documentary he executive produced to his filmography, and a few other things. In the process, I divided the table into separate film and television sections. If you don't like that division, just suggest merging all the projects in one table; don't just erase the info I spent time researching and adding. Wildhartlivie: Don't just undo because your ego was hurt that I didn't ask your permission to edit an article that you only police to undo other people's work rather than contribute anything meaningful yourself. I don't want to be snide, but you seem to strangely think that some of the articles that you watch out for are your backyard. As long as I don't vandalize, if I make an informative change, you should bring your objections to the talk page and we can discuss that; no one made you in charge of judging what goes in and comes out of this article.Hutch y2k (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, get over yourself. You are being snide. I patrol all good and featured articles on WP:ACTOR. That an editor does recent changes patrol on this article does not in any way detract from the effort to maintain it. Never make the mistake of demeaning the efforts of recent changes patrollers or vandalism patrollers in maintaining the status of an article. You've made 4 whole edits to this article. People put a huge amount of time into bringing an article up to good article status. That basically means that major style changes such as you made need to first be proposed on the article talk page, especially when the changes made do not adhere to the supported style formatting reccommended by the WikiProject that oversees that article. We do not use the formatting you used on this article in good and featured articles. The sort of changes you arbitrarily made without consensus of the other article editors responsible for the GA puts it in jeopardy. Since you've made less than 50 edits to this encyclopedia sum total, and most of those are to the article of his wife, you can be considered a single purpose account and are subject to greater scrutiny than others. Don't jeopardize other's hard work to promote your own POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildhartlivie, please read WP:NVC. The fact that this editor has less edits than you, here or anywhere else, is in no way relevant to the discussion of whether this edit should be made.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please read WP:OWN again, specifically at Examples of ownership behavior. You are "claim[ing] the right ... to review any changes  before they can be added to the article", and the example quote of "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" is almost exactly what you wrote in the edit summary.&mdash; Chowbok   ☠  00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Back off Chowbok and stop stalking my edits. Discussing the number of edits is completely relevant when edits place a good or featured article into jeopardy. You've seemed to miss the fact that this is a non-standard table style format and that there is discussion regarding that going on. I most certainly am not claiming any right to review changes, I am suggesting that when one goes about instituting major changes on such articles that include inappropriate use of style, such changes should be discussed with the other editors on the article, and that is proper. Get consensus before you make such huge changes is not an unreasonable request. You're way off base here and remind me of another edit stalking editor I know. Come in, revert, and institute accusatory comments. Oh, and for the record, that usually ended with a comment to discuss reversions first. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" is word-for-word an example given at WP:OWN of what not to argue! You really really need to read that.


 * P.S., I have every right to examine your edits, as I believe your contributions are in violation of several guidelines and policies, and are damaging to the project.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then take me to AN/I and report it. Stop stalking my edits and only harassing me with your posts. Your contentiousness and collusion is showing. Absolutely, anyone coming into a good or featured article and wanting to make major style and content changes that might effect that status should run it by the regular editors and propose major changes. Drop your bad faith accusations of ownership and butt out. If you have doubts about that, take it to AN/I. It is absolutely good editing etiquette to discuss major style changes with other editors, and any attempt to say otherwise is disingenuous. In fact, WP:OWN also says "This does not include egregious formatting errors". Changing to a non-standard table style format is such a formatting error. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please. That change is not an "error", and you know it. What's meant by that are things like forgetting to close an italic tag or making the entire article header text, stuff like that. You're just being disingenuous here.
 * I have just as much right to comment here as you or any other editor. Your edits are textbook violations of WP:OWN. See also WP:DRNC, which describes your exact behavior. "[A]nyone coming into a good or featured article and wanting to make major style and content changes that might  effect that status should run it by the regular editors and propose  major changes" is the exact opposite of Wikipedia policy, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.&mdash; Chowbok   ☠  01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildhartlivie: Take a chill pill and please return to your self-anointed role as Patrol General. You keep insulting me as a single purpose account and a less-than-50-edits fraud, as if, having opened this particular user account a few days ago, I am expected to reach a certain daily average of Wiki edits to maintain credibility.  Please assess your abusiveness.  Chowbok: Thank you for your input.  I've styled the filmography differently now - I am not here to massage my ego, so compromises and advice don't dishearten me.  Though, of course, as you have noted, having an informative yet harmless contribution being labeled an "error" is so silly that it is just hard to even feign outrage, so Wildhart's blind possessiveness only amuses me.Hutch y2k (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, stop being a dick. Like I said, your contentiousness and collusion is showing. I know your propensity for needing to have the last word, so have it. Like I told you, if you think my comments and edits are such problems, take it to AN/I. Have the courage of your convictions, but desist from being a dick and harassing me. complain, but stop harassing.

Hutch y2k, you're so far way off base there's literally no hope. I replied to you nicely, explained the issues and tried to make nice and pointed you to accepted style guidelines without which jeopardizes GA and FA status, so please feel free to stick your "amusement" in your ear.

You're both so far off the mark in regard to ownership and possessiveness and proper ettiquete when it comes to attacking a good or featured article that it isn't amusing. But you know, go ahead and I'll nominate it for GAR, if it's jeopardized. I'm certain other regular editors who nursed this article through GA will have a complaint. Nice way to encourage harmonious editing, you two. Kudos. What I find amusing is that th tables ended up adhering to project guidelines, which was what? Louder! Not policy and the other way looks better, Chowbok. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The tables ended up adhering to "project guidelines" because I don't have time to waste on childish squabbles, given that my only concern is that the relevant info be part of the article - so, don't quite pat yourself on the back for making a mountain out of a molehill. If you were as nice as you claim to be, then you would have just left a note on my talk page after my very first edit, instead of just brashly reverting it... and I would've been happy to take your suggestion and re-style it.  It is annoying to spend even half an hour looking some stuff up and then putting it in Wiki with some formatting and then have someone like you come and totally erase it off the page.  And unlike your repeated claims, my edit had absolutely nothing to do with ruining the hard work of editors who've worked on the article before me - instead, it was a minor expansion of the guy's works and a small style issue that you dragged into an edit war.  What's amusing to me is that you claim your seniority at every point of discussion, yet you act nothing like a courteous senior editor.  My very best to you - Hutch y2k (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nothing is ever gone from Wikipedia, you didn't lose 1/2 hour's work since you were working off of Chowbok's edit warring revert, you lost nothing nor would you have if he had not reverted it. In fact, that's precisely how you would have started. And despite your insistence, I was not repeatedly claiming you were ruining the hard work of editors who worked on the article before, although I did say that major stylistic changes from the standard did jeopardize it. You're welcome to your amusement, but the fundamental way to approach edit warriors who revert to keep their edits intact is to first laugh and then undo it. I find that highly amusing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Full name
The edit warring (and I don't deny I made a revert myself) over the full name thing needs to stop. Now. I suggest you work your differences out here and cease and desist changing anything in the article or reverting over the matter. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Affleck's full name is Benjamin Geza Affleck (see:http://movies.nytimes.com/person/426/Ben-Affleck/biography); just like Bill Clinton's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.  They Both had different names at Birth, so I propose the following for the lead (in accordance with all articles in such a condition, another example would be Angelina Jolie): Benjamin Géza Affleck (born Benjamin Géza Affleckbold, August 15, 1972).... and it should be "Affleckbold" because that is what the source says... do we have a source for Affleck-boldt?Hutch y2k (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Affleck's birth name, according to the California Births Records, 1905 - 1995 and further reinforced by the Massachusetts Vital Records, Births, 1975, 40:305, which identifies Casey Affleck by the birth name of Caleb Casey McGuire Affleck-Boldt, was Benjamin Géza Affleck-Boldt. His father's name was Timothy Byers Affleck and his mother's name was Christopher Anne "Chris" (née Boldt). Get it? Affleck-Boldt. That the T was omitted in the birth record transcription does not change his mother's maiden name from Boldt to Bold. That last name is confirmed by the Harvard Reports of Christopher Anne Affleck, Middlesex County Land Records, and the birth record of Casey Affleck. The New York Times death notice for his grandmother only gives the shortened names and by no stretch of the imagination does that confirm his full legal name. Neither does the Smoking Gun's copy of his voter's registration. And let's consider the "the dubious birth source" discredited here. That "dubious birth source" is an online access point for legal birth records for the state of California. There is nothing dubious about an access point for vital statistics. Many states have them and they are frequently accessed through genealogy websites. And frequently, the last name of the mother is added on via hyphenated names, like Affleck and Boldt. Common sense dictates the correction to the last name of Boldt, the birth record confirms that Bold(t) is present on the birth record. Please stop overthinking this. The records are all there and present to support the name that is given in the article. That he doesn't formally go by Benjamin Géza is evident and obvious and that he dropped his mother's maiden name from his registered Screen Actor's Guild registration does not take away from its presence on his birth certificate. And I would further point out that this is the name recommended in the Good Article nomination listed in the firth section above, so the references that support the name Benjamin Géza Affleck-Boldt were sufficient for acceptance for good article reviewers and should be sufficient for any passing editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * this is original research; we don't have a source for boldt as you yourself conceded. And how does the voter registration card not confirm that he changed his legal name and dropped his mom's last name? For that matter, why does his mom make campaign contributions as "christopher Affleck"?  See newsmeat.com for that.  Why does the New York Times list his alternative full name as ".... Affleck" and not "..... Affleck-boldt".  His campaign contributions are under the name of Affleck and his entire family (wife, children) have the "affleck" last name and not "affleck-boldt".   All of that, plus the voter registration card and NYT, provide ample proof that his current legal name is benjamin geza affleck, just like, say, matt damon's is matthew paige damon.   To me, the following seems the most appropriate:  Benjamin Géza Affleck (born Benjamin Géza Affleckbold on August 15, 1972) and we have sources for these.   The wording currently insinuates that Ben affleck is only his stage name, which it isn't as can be seen from his campaign donations at newsmeat.com or the FEC website: http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?28930533991  If he is legally using Affleck as his last name on campaign donations and to register as a voter, then how can you argue that affleck-boldt is still his legal last name? Hutch y2k (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Factually, you are very wrong. I did not conceed anything about this. The name is solidly sourced and the name was what was recommended by the GAN. The name Affleck-Boldt is sourced to the to Harvard Reports of Christopher Anne Affleck, Middlesex County Land Records, and the birth record of Casey Affleck and exists in the article. Also check your death notice to see that his mother's sister's last name is Boldt, and there is a source in the article for that. The name is given as his birth name, just as it is for his brother and I am growing quite tired of your edit warring against me. Why would you suggest using Affleckbold if you had doubts? I have no idea why they gave their sons a hyphenated birth name but it is obvious at some point in the intervening 38 years, they dropped it, probably when it dropped out of style with the intervening years. The New York Times list is copied over from a book, it isn't original work by the Times staff. None of that was written prior to his becoming notable. I also do not understand why you would refuse to acknowledge that typos occur when things are converted to databases and you fail to recognize that his mother's maiden name was Boldt and in transcription, a typo was made. Why do you suppose they would drop the T from the name for Ben but not for Casey. Because they didn't, the error was a typo in transcription. However, your contention that anyone would assume that his name is a stage name is a prime example of original research. You have nothing to support that. Myriad persons change the spelling or length of name for Equity Union purposes. And in case you missed it, a person can legally request any specific name when they make a campaign contribution. This is much simpler than you are making it. The birth name is sourced in the point of the article where it was challenged and is further sourced in the early life section, which sources his mother's maiden name. And for the record, there is nothing that says a name by which someone works must come first and birth names should come second. There are myriad examples of both presentations and thus, your change to that is simply arbitrary and reflects your drive to simply disagree with anything I say. Think about the contentions you make. They are not logical. Your link to the FEC page also says his name is "Ben Affleck". Does that prove his first name isn't Benjamin? Does the listed street address of 2401 Main St, Santa Monica mean he lives at that address? I don't think so, considering that address is an office building. You have to read these things, use common sense and assimilate everything that is being said. Oh, and a news blurb like the one below doesn't confirm or deny anything. Like I said, the website you dismissed as a "dubious birth source" is to the official link for the California Birth Index. It isn't at all dubious and it takes no thought to realize his mother's maiden name of "Boldt" could conceivably be typoed to "Bold". It's sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another source: When the NC police department issued a warrant against him (due to some crazy woman), they used the name Benjamin Géza Affleck of California: http://www.news24.com/Entertainment/OffBeat/Affleck-threatened-woman-20031006 Hutch y2k (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking back at previous editions, the lead with which the article passed the Good Article nomination is the best; so I think it should be reverted to the original phrasing.99.50.93.96 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the lead-name to the condition of the GA nominated version. Peace. Hutch y2k (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a thousand things to say against many of your points, but I am not interested. I think we should just keep the lead the way Thinkblue put it and the way GA editors approved it.   That is the best resolution and it respects the people who have worked on the article.  best.  Hutch y2k (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am including here my final suggestion for a compromise to Wildhartlivie (which is merely to reinstate the original GA-nominated state of the lead) and why I think the current phrasing of the lead is misleading. This is what I posted on Wild's talk page (he/she hasn't been online since, but I hope we can agree on this soon):

''why can't we just use the original sentence, which went like this: " Ben Affleck (born Benjamin Géza Affleck-Boldt on August 15, 1972) " because clearly as we all agree the A-b hyphenated form of the name has been a passive if not now a totally defunct presence in his life (if he had used that name in school, I would have given it more importance, but it seems like he was never called by that name ... it would be like starting joaquin Phoenix's article with joaquin bottom merely because he was born with that moniker). The Angelina Jolie case is identical and it works just as well for her article as it will for Affleck's. I see your point about given name, but let's face it, if say Affleck was to run for office tomorrow, we'll see his tax returns, etc. and his name on the ballot is going to be benjamin geza affleck. And then we'll have to change it to the way bill clinton's lead is formatted. but given the absence of any such proof for his current legal name, I think the name he uses for both professional and private purposes (campaign donations as a private citizen, etc.) isn't too far-fetched to be the first name mentioned. So, I really think the aforementioned lead works best. Phew. I rest my case :)''

In short: the reason why I think ben affleck should be first is a) because saying that he is "professionally" known as ben affleck is misleading as that implies his private and personal/legal moniker is something else, which it isn't as he is known both professionally and privately as such b) that is how originally it was set up in the GA nominated article; so why change it? b) it makes much more sense for the reasons I pointed out above. c) why are we giving so much importance to a name that is neither his legal name nor his professional or private/childhood name? It just baffles me, and d) Angelina Jolie, Jon Stewart, and many other articles follow this template and are much more to-the-point/accurate thus.Hutch y2k (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous usage of the golden raspberry
As Affleck is an excellent actor (obviously this is subject) and there is evidence for this with regards to the awards and nominations he has received. The golden raspberry is NOT a real film award. It is just about putting down certain films and actors and is totally subjective. The majority of actors wiki pages do not include these "awards" even if they have been nominated. Therefore his nominations an "wins" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.40.170 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV and you will find your answer. Wikipedia is not a fansite, and as much as it is not about "putting down" anyone, it is not about writing appraisal pieces either. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Directorial debut on YouTube
The links were removed and WP:LINKVIO was cited as the reason. Quoting from that same policy: "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material". Considering that YouTube has a strict policy concerning copyright violation, coupled with the fact that the video was uploaded nearly 16 months ago, I'd safely say we can link to it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is, if we find something that is 16 months or older on YouTube, it is free for all/free game/throw all the policies out of the window? That is not how it works. Quoting: "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. See Copyright violations for more information, and Copyright problems for detailed instructions." Nymf hideliho! 06:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it infringes copyright – how do you know it does? Again, if it really did, it would have been removed a while ago. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to show that it is public domain, or whatever. And no, clips aren't removed from YouTube until someone makes a copyright claim. By your logic, the music on this page is not copyrighted. Nymf hideliho! 21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it that the burden is on me and not on you to prove there is a copyvio taking place here? If Affleck's reps did not file a complaint, why is it that we must assume the worst unless proven otherwise? Where is the policy on that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one adding content, I am not. Feel free to bring it to WP:CP. Until then, this is getting tedious. Nymf hideliho! 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

College graduate and Middle East Affairs Major?
Did Ben ever graduate from college? Article says he majored, but never clearly indicates if he does hold a degree. Spelling Style (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Affleck spent one semester at the University of Vermont, which did not and does not have a Middle East Affairs major. It does have political science however a student there for a single semester wouldn't be able to advance past the core courses in that time frame. Perhaps he took an International Affairs course. (POLS 071) but despite the NY Times article, there is no evidence that he has any real background in Middle East Affairs. Navyblues26 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)NavyBlues26


 * yes, and the page should not call either of the two schools he briefly attended his "alma mater" as it currently does. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Géza?
Géza is certainly a Hungarian name, but I donʼt see any Hungarian ancestors... Mazarin07 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * His parents gave him the name after their neighbour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galambfagyi (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How? He's from California. Foreign letters are illegal in California.184.155.130.147 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to what law? Please be specific. Thank you. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the accent. For example:
 * the warrant from 2003 cited in the above discussion
 * the 2015 reference cited in the article..
 * Filmreference.com (the first ref in the article) also does not support..
 * The birth record only supports "G".

However the NYT bio, gives it as part of his "alternative name" - the content is from AMG.


 * supports Geza
 * Klan - Volume 8, Issues 377-389 - Page 46 supports Geza
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac 2010 - Page 37 supports Geza
 * The Oxford Desk Dictionary of People and Places - Page 6 Supports Geza

The accent was introduced to the article by an IP in 2007, with no reference (the reference already there only supports "G.").

Therefore I propose to remove the accent, and that it stays removed, absent any further compelling evidence to support it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Reception & Awards for Films Directed
It's a brilliant section, however does his student film and a random short film need to be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.144.223 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maher and Harris debates
I've (again) reverted this edit per WP:BRD; the edit is problematic for several reasons: Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the most recent edit summary says only "no need for complete transcript of the exchange"; that edit summary doesn't make sense, since the edit covers 2 exchanges consisting of over 15 minutes of dialogue, while our article conveys only a couple sentences from the discussion, enough to properly convey context, as required.
 * the edit inserts the unsupported text, "defended Christians who were characterised by Bill Maher as 'stupid'"; the sources do not say that. Maher criticized two things in that exchange, (1) "there is no diversity of religion in this country" with regard to the US political system and representation in the president's Cabinet, and, (2) "[people of faith] who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe". Affleck is actually the one to twice use the word "stupid" in relation to people of faith, followed by Maher asking about Ben's use of the word. (Please watch the video or read the transcript.)
 * the edit inserts the unsupported text, "described Maher's chastisation of liberals for their reluctance to denounce Islam as 'racist' and 'gross'"; the source does not say that (and is "chastisation" even a word?). The edit removes the direct quote of what Affleck actually said (including the words 'racist' and 'gross'), as well as the context in which he said it. It is against Wikipedia policy to make stuff up about what living people (Affleck and Maher are still both alive as far as I know) have said.
 * an additional concern I have is with the three newly introduced sources: One; Two; Three. The first is low quality, the second is a self-published blog, and the third is an opinion piece posted at DailyKos.  I have temporarily left those sources in place (because one contains a video link, and another a partial transcript), but they really should be replaced with higher-quality reliable sources more compliant with our WP:BLP requirements.
 * Surely Maher's views can be paraphrased in a sentence or two. Such long quotations from someone else in a section about Affleck's political views is not helpful.Popeye191 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maher's view is indeed expressed in less than two sentences, so what are you saying? Perhaps you meant Harris' views? Regarding the "section about Affleck's political views", let's take a closer look at that paragraph as it appeared after your edits: In 2005, Affleck defended Christians who were characterised by Bill Maher as "stupid" while, in 2014, he described Maher's chastisation of liberals for their reluctance to denounce Islam as “racist” and “gross.” That's it, in its entirety. So tell me, what political views of Affleck's, exactly, were you intending to convey with that sentence?  I don't see any. Instead, I see text that says Affleck "defended Christians" against something Maher never said about Christians, and Affleck described as "racist and gross" a "chastisation" Maher never made about liberals.  That whole sentence of yours appears to me to be an attempt to convey to our readers information about Maher, rather than Affleck (false information, it turns out, as closer examination of your cited sources shows). I re-wrote your content to include the actual verbatim quotes from the people involved, including the context; is that what you are objecting to? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant Harris too. At present, the article is an account of the debate. I've bolded the views of other people and they absolutely could be paraphrased into a sentence. No one is on Affleck's page for a detailed account of the views of Harris or anyone else other than Affleck.Popeye191 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In 2005, Affleck defended people of faith who Bill Maher criticized because they "suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe." Affleck said such belief, "doesn't inherently make them stupid", to which Maher responded, "Really? If you believe the words of the Bible literally; if you believe the world is 5,000 years old, that's not stupid?"[365][366][367] In 2014, Affleck engaged in a heated debate with Maher, Sam Harris and other panelists concerning Islamic religion. The conflict began when Harris mentioned "Liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They'll criticize white theocracy. They'll criticize Christians...But when you want to talk about the treatment of women, and homosexuals, and freethinkers and public intellectuals in the Muslim world, I would argue that liberals have failed us." Harris later went on to explain how criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry against Muslim people. Affleck responded to Harris and Maher's position on Islam by saying, "It's gross, it's racist, it's disgusting. It's like saying, 'Oh, you shifty Jew!" Harris responded that, "No, we have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam, at this moment, is the motherlode of bad ideas". Maher concluded, "One reason [moderate Muslims] don't get exposure is because they are afraid to speak out because it's the only religion that acts like the mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book", and reiterated that his position was based on facts; studies, polls and surveys taken in the Muslim world. Affleck said he didn't understand their arguments.Popeye191 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen that paragraph already. It's the one presently in the article. You seem to have missed my question, so I'll re-ask it here: So tell me, what political views of Affleck's, exactly, were you intending to convey?  Perhaps that would be a good starting point. Or, if you prefer, you could propose alternate text to "paraphrase into a sentence" the present content, as long as it doesn't completely misrepresent what was actually said by the participants. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting this same matter, an editor has removed context and distorted what transpired during a discussion, commenting "this is not the place to completely recount this argument, and the account is weighted against Affleck". If having the "complete recount of the argument" makes Affleck look bad, do we really think that the proper response is to trim away only the parts that are "weighted against Affleck"? I agree with you that when the whole discussion is presented, the arguments are weighted against Affleck, but I suspect that trimming one side of the issue would violate our WP:NPOV policy. If you would like to reduce that paragraph, which is a reasonable endeavor, we shouldn't do so at the expense of one whole side of the issue. I suggested above to another editor that a good starting point would be to determine what political views of Affleck's, exactly, you were intending to convey with that paragraph, and start from there. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the section, as it stands, has a few problems, including a lack of neutrality:


 * It's poorly written, particularly with its use of "said" verbs. For example: 'The conflict began when Harris mentioned "Liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy...'" (The quote continues.) This is not what "mention" means. To mention means to say something in passing, but Harris spoke at some length, quite deliberately.
 * It's very quote-heavy (see WP:QUOTEFARM) when it should be paraphrasing. We don't need such dense quotes to establish context.
 * It particularly stresses statements from Harris and Maher, when the subject should be Affleck. Our goal here is to summarise his political views, not those of others.
 * "[Harris] reiterated that his position was based on facts; studies, polls and surveys taken in the Muslim world." - This statement could be read as an endorsement of Harris's claims.
 * "Maher concluded" - the verb "conclude" suggests that Maher "solved" the argument.
 * "Affleck said he didn't understand their arguments." This suggests that the problem is with Affleck, especially used as a closing sentence. It's also a misreprentation: it's not like Affleck meant "hmm, I don't understand, guess I need to do some more studying". (I also don't think it's very important generally.)
 * I make these criticisms as someone who thinks Affleck was totally in the wrong, by the way. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressing your third bullet-point first, "...the subject should be Affleck. Our goal here is to summarise his political views, not those of others." May I ask you to paraphrase in your own words, in brief summary fashion, what political view of Affleck's that this paragraph should convey? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I did that already - in my revision. But to summarise again here:
 * 'In 2005, responding to comedian Bill Maher's statement that religious people "suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe," Affleck said: “People of faith aren’t stupid by dint of their being of faith. I disagree. I think that's stupid."'
 * and:
 * '[Affleck] argued that "Maher and Harris's criticisms of Islam were “gross and racist. It’s like saying, ‘Oh, you shifty Jew!'”'
 * Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those aren't actually summaries of Affleck's belief(s); those are instead opinions voiced by Affleck in juxtaposition to arguments he has created and attributed to two other living people. Arguments that they didn't actually make. Each of your two example passages include (and misrepresent) views of other people, so if you are going to mention these other people in this Wikipedia article, you are required to accurately represent what they are saying.  Your proposed edit could leave readers mistakenly thinking that Maher called religious people stupid (he didn't), or that Maher and Harris made "gross and racist" criticisms about Islam, akin to an anti-Semite saying "You shifty Jew," (they didn't).  See the problem there?  And while it may be a perception problem on my part, I'm still not seeing what the exact "political position" of Affleck is being conveyed by your two examples. If we could narrow that down, then perhaps we could find less problematic reliable sources to cite which convey it.
 * As to your other observations on stylistic concerns and personal preference, I don't disagree or have strong feelings either way, i.e.; "remarked", "said", "mentioned", "responded", etc. The use of quotes in the article as a whole (see WP:QUOTEFARM) doesn't appear to be an issue, and as for that particular paragraph, I don't see why paraphrasing (when done accurately) couldn't convey the same information just as well. I suspect that paraphrase vs direct quote isn't the driving concern behind completely excising whole quotes from the paragraph, however. That certain verbiage could be read as endorsing Harris' statements or presenting Maher's statements as a conclusion is correct; so what are you suggesting?  Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's NPOV policy says that we are to accurately convey what the sources say; presenting all sides or points of view as equivalent, when the sources do not convey that equivalency, would actually violate NPOV policy.  It's a common misunderstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand where you’re coming from. There were definitely some errors in my revision.


 * But! It seems to me that at the very least the abundance of quotes in this section makes for a very tiresome read. We have to find some way to paraphrase the people involved without resorting to quoting entire exchanges at length. I completely agree with Popeye191 on this matter. (I also don’t see the need for so many sources, incidentally, which also clutter up the text and don’t seem to say particularly different things.)


 * Here’s another suggested rewrite that, I hope, is more correct:


 * In 2005, responding to comedian Bill Maher's statement that religious people "are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe," Affleck said: “I think that's oversimplifying it and probably a little bit insulting people of faith aren't stupid by dint of their being of faith … I think most religious people, like, don't think that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 200 years.” In 2014, he engaged in a heated debate with Maher, philosopher Sam Harris and other panelists concerning Islam. Harris stated: “Liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They'll criticize white theocracy. They'll criticize Christians ... But when you want to talk about the treatment of women, and homosexuals, and freethinkers and public intellectuals in the Muslim world, I would argue that liberals have failed us …  Every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people. It’s intellectually ridiculous. It even gets conflated with racism." Affleck responded “Are you the person who officially understands the codified doctrine of Islam?” and argued that Maher and Harris's criticisms were of Islam were “gross and racist. It’s like saying, ‘Oh, you shifty Jew!'”


 * I really don’t think we need to include Harris and Maher’s responses to Affleck’s “shifty Jew” remark. I believe it is clear from the text what sort of point Harris and Maher were making, and, again, the important thing here is Affleck’s position. Popcornduff 11:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Two questions: (1) I've asked this before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record: In your own words, without quoting anyone, what political position of Affleck's are you trying to convey with this paragraph? And (2), if one person calls two other people 'gross and racist' and equates their comments with anti-Semitism, what could possibly prompt you to conclude that, "I really don’t think we need to include Harris and Maher’s responses to Affleck’s" attacks?  I'm really not understanding you here.  Explain, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As for renaming the discussion header, your change is an improvement. And I see you have pinged the other editor, which is fine, but know that he/she, like the rest of us, is required to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, too. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) Affleck does not believe that holding religious beliefs is an indication of intellectual weakness; Affleck believes Maher and Harris's condemnations of Islam amount to racism. 2) I guess we're at a mutual non-understanding, because I'm not really sure what you mean here. As I said in answer to question 1, the goal, surely, is to report Affleck's position. Why do we need any more? Popcornduff (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response. I think that gives us a good starting point with which to work. I think it also highlights where we apparently disagree on what the sources say.  Breaking it down into smaller parts:
 * Affleck does not believe that holding religious beliefs is an indication of intellectual weakness
 * I do not think that is an accurate assessment of what Affleck was saying. More accurate would be:  Affleck does not believe that most "people of faith" believe in the literal word of the bible, and he considers those who do to be on the "extreme" ends of the spectrum; the ones who get all the negative attention.  Affleck never disagrees with Maher's assertion that believing that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, or that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, is a suspension of "rational judgement" or a "mental block".  In fact, Affleck's only disagreement with Maher is on the prevalence of these "extreme" believers in the bible among the total of those who call themselves religious: Maher cites polls which say at least "45% of the people believe the Bible literally", while Affleck argues that there must be something wrong with how those poll questions are worded.
 * Affleck believes Maher and Harris's condemnations of Islam amount to racism
 * Again, that does not appear to be an accurate representation of what the cited sources say. More accurate would be: Affleck believes that Maher and Harris' condemnation of violations of the liberal principals of freedom of speech, the freedom to practice any religion without fear of violence, the freedom to leave a religion, equality for women, equality for minorities including homosexuals, amount to racism  [sic].  The criticism and condemnation is of those "bad ideas", not of Islam, as you say.  Of course Maher and Harris cite the prevalence of these bad ideas in the "Muslim world", and say, "we have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam, at this moment, is the motherlode of bad ideas", but they also say, "we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change this, and lying about the link between doctrine and behavior is not going to do that".  In fact, Affleck directly asks if their solution is to "condemn Islam", to which he receives a "No." in response, which rather makes your interpretation of what Affleck believes to be somewhat incomplete.  Harris points out that Affleck is misunderstanding the argument, and Affleck agrees, and taking a different approach, Harris says "Let me give you what you want", and explains to Affleck that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't want to kill apostates and who are horrified by ISIS, and we need to defend them and prop them up and let them reform the Islam faith.  That rather makes your characterization as "condemnation of Islam" seem nonsensical and inaccurate .  And again, Maher cites studies and polls of Muslim people when he claims that these human rights violations are supported by many more than just "a few bad apples" in the Islamic faith — a rather key point in both discussions, yet is absent from your last proposed rewording.
 * the goal, surely, is to report Affleck's position
 * That would be fine if that's what you proposed. But you didn't.  Instead, you proposed to also report (misreport, it turns out), the positions of two other living people.  Wikipedia forbids us from editing in that manner.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on much of your interpretation - but put that aside for a second. How do you propose to transform the section into concise, readable prose? Popcornduff (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you are welcome to disagree with any personal interpretations I may make, but the explanations I gave above, on the other hand, are simply a recap of what was said in those discussions. It's a little more difficult to disagree that someone said what they said.  If your goal is simply to convert quotes into prose, that should be easy.  As for "concise", there is over 18 minutes of discussion on a complicated, contentious topic, involving up to 7 individuals; even a concise summary which accurately conveys what was said will be somewhat lengthy.  That is why I recommended finding better sources which describe Affleck's general views on religion, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Comment copied here from a User Talk page, for further discussion...) Hello, which statements were unsupported by the sources? I've looked back and they're not jumping out at me. He did have a debate about Christians in 2005 and the source is reliable (New York magazine). He did have a debate with Maher concerning the tensions between liberal values and Islam in 2014 and the direct quotes are all cited. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There were many, but I'll mention just a few here. "the host suggested people of Christian faith are unintelligent" - no, he didn't. He didn't single out "Christianity", nor did he use the word "unintelligent", and the substance of his actual criticism was completely omitted.  "Maher's depiction of Islam as 'the mother lode of bad ideas'" - no, he didn't depict that (that was Harris, although Maher likely agrees). We can't make stuff up based on our personal interpretation, and then insert it into the Wikipedia article.  "[Affleck argued] that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not hold extreme views and should not be held to a different standard than Americans" - It is Maher and Harris that criticize liberals for holding Muslims to a different standard than Americans, but that seems to have been (accidently?) omitted from your re-write; which is strange, since it is the core of Maher and Harris' argument against Liberals when it comes to Muslims.
 * You've been doing a great job on cleaning up the Affleck article, especially in making the wording more accessible. Thanks for your efforts there; perhaps you can bring it to FA status.  But regarding this particular bit of content, and you should have figured this out after our earlier discussion above, I'm likely to object to any attempts to misrepresent or omit the actual context.  I've removed the misrepresented content for now.  If you feel that subject matter should appear in the Affleck article, and are willing to present the content accurately, without personal interpretations, and without the POV resulting from omitted context, we can certainly work on that. Regards,  Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do want to get it right. The paraphrasing on the 2005 debate came from NY Mag so I thought it'd be acceptable - I'll now work on using direct quotes to avoid confusion.
 * I actually used that sentence about "a different standard" to preface Affleck's quote about how Westerners' actions are not held up as representative of their beliefs. Again, I'll work on rewording it to avoid confusion. I think it might be safest to remove any reference to Maher's position and just present Affleck's views.Popeye191 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you just want to include content that conveys that Affleck holds views that are pro-religious-freedom and anti-(insert flavor of religion here)-phobic, that's fine, . This particular content is anything but simple; there are a lot of very nuanced components to it.  As I said above, I have many concerns with your re-write of that one paragraph, and I only mentioned a few.  There are others, like where you stated your opinion that Affleck "dismissed Pew Research Center data", and you cited a Salon article to support that -- you do realize it is the author of the Salon article, not Affleck, who questions the Pew data - and Affleck's response to the data could be characterized differently?  Or when you quoted Affleck as saying, "“They’re not a reflection of what we believe in", did you intend to leave off his "We did it by accident” part, and did you realize he was being sarcastic? Your edit doesn't inform our readers of that. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had another try at it. Let me know what you think. As the paragraph stands, I don't think anyone else is being demonized. Affleck's views and Affleck's views alone are being presented. I've taken out the reference to Pew Research data (I included it because Maher and Harris brought it up but it didn't convince Affleck, but I take your point). I reinserted the part about the Iraq war being an "accident." Hopefully, that makes it extremely clear he was being sarcastic.Popeye191 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's take a look at your proposed content additions. The two parts to be added:
 * In a debate about religion in 2005, Affleck argued: "People of faith aren't stupid by dint of their being of faith." Cited to this

My very first thought about that sentence is, "Huh?" An average reader is not going to be any more informed about Affleck's politics after reading just that uninformative sentence. I happen to know the whole detailed backstory, so I know where that snippet came from, but as a stand-alone quote, it does not strike me as informative or in any way useful in illuminating Affleck's political positions. (And by the way, it wasn't a "debate about religion", it was a discussion on how there is no secularism or diversity of religion in US politics, and specifically in President George Bush's political cabinet. Every appointee had to be "Twice-born-double-dog-Christ-y", and Maher resented being represented by people who "suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe".) Affleck responded with his opinion that most religious people (he makes an exception for those "on some ends of the extreme - those who get the attention"), just because they are people of faith, doesn't mean they believe in the Bible literally, or believe in the nonsensical, or are stupid. But no average reader would get that from the snippet you are proposing. and this:
 * In 2014, Affleck engaged in a debate concerning the tensions between liberal values and Islam. Cited here He argued that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not hold extreme views and said that Westerners' actions are not held up as representative of their beliefs: "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot, and we’ve invaded more Islamic nations. But we’re exempted from these things? 'They’re not a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that's why we invaded Iraq.'” Cited here

I'll skip over the RS citing issues for now (you really chose to cite a blogger from The Guardian who begins with the red-flag declaration, "Ben Affleck has won praise for accusing TV host Bill Maher and author Sam Harris for what he called “gross” and “racist” depictions..."?). The way you've written it (different from how the sources convey it, by the way), it appears you wish to say that Affleck thinks (1) only a tiny minority of Muslims hold illiberal and intolerant views, and (2) Western nations are guilty,, or even more guilty of worse stuff, too ("two wrongs make a right" logic)? I'm not so sure we should have him advancing a "two wrongs makes a right" position in a BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it might just be best to leave out the 2005 quote - it would take too many sentences to set up what isn't a very informative point.


 * I don't think the Guardian piece is a blog - it's an article in the culture/ film section of a respected newspaper - but I'll find a more 'neutral' source. 1) Yes, that is what Affleck was attempting to say ("what about the more than billion Muslims who aren't fanatical..?") I'll change extremist views to fanatical views to avoid confusion. 2) My reading of that quote is that he thinks Westerners shouldn't be so quick to assign reasons for the behaviour of others, without first examining their own behaviour. But how we interpret the quote isn't really the point, right? That's what Affleck said and he stood by his quotes in a later interview.Source I don't see how it's questionable in a BLP article - disagreeing with someone's views or finding them morally objectionable shouldn't mean those views shouldn't be presented in a 'political views' sectionPopeye191 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited it. Let me know what you think Popeye191 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've edited it? Actually, you added your proposed content, while it was under discussion. Hmm.
 * disagreeing with someone's views or finding them morally objectionable shouldn't mean those views shouldn't be presented
 * I see. Well, if you prefer to go back to that route — juxtaposing Affleck's views with someone's views he finds objectionable, rather than simply source and encyclopedically his positions — we can certainly do that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't change it again until we've reached a final agreement. I thought that version would be okay.
 * I don't wish to juxtapose Affleck's views with anyone else - it gets too long-winded. I was responding to the comment where you said, "I'm not so sure we should have him advancing a "two wrongs makes a right" position in a BLP." That was your interpretation of his comment. My point was that just because some might find Affleck's comment questionable doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in his own political views section. Or have I misunderstood you?Popeye191 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've just removed the part where Affleck says, "'They’re not a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that's why we invaded Iraq.'" There are extra speech marks around those two sentences to show he was he was speaking sarcastically / the words of another. I don't think anyone would read that whole quote and come to the conclusion that Affleck believes the Iraq War was an accident. Sarcasm is used all the time in written work. I think it added to his point.Popeye191 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But how we interpret the quote isn't really the point, right? That's what Affleck said and he stood by his quotes...
 * I tend to agree (if we are going to use quotes at all), so I removed the editorial interpretation part and just left the quote. (I had to adjust the quote a little from the actual video, as the printed transcript left part of it out). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is bias in the sentence, "He argued that contrary to what studies and polls show, the overwhelming majority..." Many people dispute the validity of such polls and, by including them, there is a strong implication in the sentence that Affleck is wrong. Also, he said very few Muslims are "fanatical", not that very few hold "intolerant or anti-liberal views about the treatment of women, homosexuals, religious freedom, adultery and apostasy." Many would argue that laws against homosexuality, while not liberal (and unacceptable, in my view), are not fanatical. Why not use the term Affleck actually used to save any confusion?Popeye191 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording you described as biased is from the cited source (in Salon, originally added by you, then removed), as is the "intolerant" and "anti-liberal" verbiage. Of course some people dispute the accuracy of various polls and studies, and Affleck may be one of those people (on the Maher show, he seems incredulous, but didn't argue the point to a significant degree on the Maher show).  What was the complete sentence in which he used the word "fanatical", just so we're on the same page? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did originally mention the Pew polls but, following a discussion with you, I realised he didn't engage with that argument fully enough to determine his views on them. Affleck's direct quote was: "What about the more than billion Muslims who aren't fanatical..?"Popeye191 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * laws against homosexuality, while not liberal, are not fanatical...
 * I don't think the issue was 'laws', but rather the 'punishments' according to the religious doctrine. Including the punishment for adultery.  Or for leaving the Islamic faith.  Or simply for criticizing it.  If you listen to the whole discussion, you will hear that the "motherlode of bad ideas" being criticized run the gamut from simply objectionable to outrageously unacceptable.  Yes, Affleck asks (not 'argued', as you wrote) about the "billion Muslims who aren't fanatical, who don't punch women", but Maher interrupts him and has him clarify that, asking "you're saying all these billion people don't hold these pernicious beliefs? That's just not true, Ben."  Ben was only referring to the issue of death for apostasy. Ben's "argument" in the discussion about Islam (as your lead-in suggests) didn't come until later.


 * This article is about Affleck, and the section is about his political views. Agreed.  It's not the proper venue to conduct a debate about the Islamic religion, or Muslims, and I understand your valid concern about that.  That's why my first preference to was to simply omit the "Real Time With Bill Maher" episode-related content altogether.  Especially if reliable sources could be found instead, which more generally convey Affleck's positions on religion, specifically Islam, etc., outside of that one debate.  I'm still looking for such sources.  If we're stuck with including that televised discussion in some form in this article, and if we're going to use references with titles like "Mr. XXX calls Mr. YYY a racist!", then we are going to have a very large and comprehensive section neutrally covering the matter, out of necessity.  And as I mentioned before, it is a complicated and nuanced subject, with some sources claiming Affleck and Maher are both right, or that both of their arguments are wrong, or the Salon article you dug up - did you realize it says that Affleck was wrong to misuse the word "racist", and that Affleck was wrong to say Harris & Maher were generalizing, and that Affleck's claim that there are 1.6 billian Muslims is a false premise, and that Maher and Harris were right in asserting that Muslims "in general-or in other words, in their majority- hold savagely violent, intolerant and misogynistic views?" (If the polls are to be trusted.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you conflated Affleck's question about the billion Muslims who aren't fanatics with his "we've killed more Muslims" remark? And omitted his question about the solution? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "If you listen to the whole discussion" - I have listened to the whole discussion (many times at this point, heh!) As the sentences currently stands, it's not necesary to determine whether they were talking about laws/ punishments/ whatever. It's not in dispute that Affleck said (on board with changing the verb from 'argued') that a billion Muslims are not "fanatical", right? So why can't we simply state that?


 * While working on this article over the past few years, I've read almost every public statement Affleck has ever made, and this Maher segment is the most he has expanded on his views religion, and it should absolutely be included. I'd guess it got more coverage than anything else he has said in the political realm, and is notable for that reason.


 * "If we're going to use references with titles like "Mr. XXX calls Mr. YYY a racist!", then we are going to have a very large and comprehensive section neutrally covering the matter, out of necessity." What references are you talking about? There are currently three refs - Salon, CNN and Entertainment Weekly are all reliable sources and none of them mention racism in their titles. a) Bill Maher and the liberal conundrum: Progressives, religion and extremism b) Affleck, Maher in heated debate about Islam c) Fired-up Ben Affleck clashes with Bill Maher over Islam.


 * "It is a complicated and nuanced subject, with some sources claiming Affleck and Maher are both right, or that both of their arguments are wrong..." Of course people have different views. That same is true for any political view anyone has ever expressed, ever! Many people also think his stance on abortion/ gun rights etc etc is wrong - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. This paragraph is about Affleck's views on religion/ Islam, not anyone else.


 * "Is there a reason why you conflated Affleck's question about the billion Muslims who aren't fanatics with his "we've killed more Muslims" remark? And omitted his question about the solution?" No reason - I've changed it to "later added." I don't think his questions add anything: "What is your solution? To condemn Islam?" It's clear from the other direct quotes what his position on condemning Islam is, and the use of questions only causes the reader to wonder who else was involved in the conversation and what exactly his question was in response to, and I think by now we've established that mentioning the views of other panelists would only open a can of worms.


 * As it currently stands: In 2014, Affleck engaged in a debate about Islam.http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/bill_maher_and_the_liberal_conundrum_progressives_religion_and_extremism/ He said that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not "fanatical"http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/showbiz/tv/affleck-maher-islam-real-time/ and later added, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. Yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."http://www.ew.com/article/2014/10/04/ben-affleck-bill-maher-islam Popeye191 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This paragraph is about Affleck's views on religion/ Islam, not anyone else.
 * Exactly. But instead of describing his views, you are excerpting snippets of quotations (something discouraged, by the way), removing them from the greater discussion, devoid of context, and inserting those into this article, instead of inserting encyclopedic descriptions of Affleck's political views.  When I tried to caution you as to how the same discussion can be interpreted in many different ways, your response was...
 * Of course people have different views.
 * You do realize you are one of those people, and your views are reflected in what quotes you wish to cherry-pick from the discussion, which to avoid, which sources to cite, and how you present them.
 * only causes the reader to wonder ... what exactly his question was in response to...
 * Ah, I see. And the logic behind hiding this information from our readers is ... ?  Without it, you are not conveying a political view held by Affleck.  You are conveying an interpretation, yours.  I'm getting the impression that you aren't fully grasping my concern here. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "I'm getting the impression that you aren't fully grasping my concern here." I'm trying extremely hard to present this section in a way that is acceptable to you. I am addressing each and every one of your questions and comments. I'm not trying to insert my own views into this section, just Affleck's. The best way to avoid misinterpretation is to use direct quotations (as you said earlier, it's best to "[remove] the editorial interpretation part and just [leave] the quote." Therefore, I've tidied up the "snippet" about fanaticism and presented it more in his own words ie. overwhelming majority = more than a billion). "..removing them from the greater discussion, devoid of context..." The context of the quotes is that this was a debate about Islam. What more exactly is needed? His meaning is quite clear. Would you please, line by line, explain what is open to misinterpretation in the current draft?


 * We've already discussed how it is impractical to quote the whole transcript or even a large proportion of what Affleck said in this conversation. It's the same in any article - if Hilary Clinton does an interview or gives a speech on Israel, not every single thing she says needs to be included in her Political Views article. Which crucial point of Affleck's do you think is missing from the current draft?


 * "Ah, I see. And the logic behind hiding this information from our readers is ... ? " I'm not hiding anything! If you really think it adds to the section to say that Affleck thinks nothing can be solved by condeming Islam, then go ahead. My point, as I think you must know, was that the questions are clearly in response to a comment by another, and I'm not giving an account of a conversation with others (whose views then need to be explained), but rather a concise account of Affleck's views. Popeye191 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "which sources to cite" I asked you earlier - is there a problem with the existing sources?


 * Current draft (please list the problems line-by-line so that it can be fixed): In 2014, Affleck engaged in a debate about Islam. He said that "more than a billion" Muslims are not "fanatical" and later added, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. Yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."


 * You're trying really hard to present this "section..."? Okay, we're definitely not on the same page here.  What you are presenting is just a couple sentences, comprised almost entirely of direct quotation, that you say is a "political view" of Affleck's. What political view, or views, was that again?  I honestly don't see it in those couple sentences.  You are taking a 10-minute heated discussion on a complicated issue, between at least 5 participants (and several more in after-the-fact published articles you are citing), and from all that you are extracting a couple (incorrectly transcribed) quotations, presenting them to our readers as a "political view"? Right up there with other hot-button political issues like gun control, wage inequality, we have ... killing many Muslims?  It doesn't even tell us if he is pro or against killing many Muslims.  Perhaps it would help if you could summarize in your own words what this political position of Affleck's is that you would like to convey to our readers.  That will give me a better idea of what you are attempting to draft.


 * The discussion wasn't a "debate on Islam", by the way, which is rather generic and uninformative. There was no comparative discussion of Allah, no interpretations of passages from the Quran, no historical review of the significant personages or figureheads, etc.  As the host declared at the very beginning of that video segment, "We are trying to make the case that liberals should stand up for liberal principles", and he followed that by saying that these (he listed off several) principles are lacking "in the Muslim world".  Now, of course, Islam will be a significant part of that discussion, but it certainly shouldn't be introduced to our readers as a "debate on Islam".


 * I'm getting some mixed signals from you. On the one hand, you have stated, ... this Maher segment is the most he has expanded on his views religion, and it should absolutely be included. I'd guess it got more coverage than anything else he has said in the political realm, and is notable for that reason.  On the other hand, you have taken what was once a comprehensive, full paragraph of coverage of that historic watershed event, and replaced it instead with a mere partial quote that couldn't possibly be less informative and without explanatory context.  The justification, if I understood it, was that the previous informative paragraph was too long because it contained not just Affleck's arguments and views, but also the arguments and views to which he was directly responding or debating.  As you know, I'm okay with a neutral and comprehensive coverage of that debate.  I'm also, less enthusiastically, okay with omitting coverage in this article of that event for the present.  What I'm having trouble with is seeing the justification for cherry-picking a quotation out of that whole lengthy event, and presenting it to our readers as if it were somehow a summary of one of Affleck's "political views". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Earlier you advocated for using direct quotations instead of political interpretation ("[remove] the editorial interpretation part and just [leave] the quote"). Now that the sentences (not 'section', apologies) are presenting his own words, you're saying direct quotes are a problem ("a mere partial quote that couldn't possibly be less informative and without explanatory context")


 * "Right up there with other hot-button political issues like gun control, wage inequality, we have ... killing many Muslims? It doesn't even tell us if he is pro or against killing many Muslims." The political views being expressed, as I see them (not that it matters, his words represent his opinion, stand alone without interpretation and make sense! It's for the reader to determine what his view is): Not all Muslims are fanatical - there's no point in condemning Islam as a religion in order to advance liberalism. Countries are often unable to acknowledge the degree to which selfish interest influences their pursuit of the liberal course of action. We need to recognise our own history of and capacity for terrible crimes, and we need to see ourselves the way we are seen by Muslims. Saying that illiberal actions are a bigger problem elsewhere in the world, lets us off the hook ...I don't even know how to respond to your second comment - I don't see how his words could be read as anything other than as Affleck being against killing Muslims. I haven't left out an extra part of his argument that would make his argument any clearer - that's his point in full.


 * "The discussion wasn't a "debate on Islam", by the way ... As the host declared at the very beginning of that video segment, "We are trying to make the case that liberals should stand up for liberal principles." Done - changed the phrasing to a "discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam"


 * "I'm getting some mixed signals from you." I don't see any confusion in my position. His comments in this appearance are notable because they were widely covered. However, there is no reason they cannot be concisely conveyed. He hasn't spoken about Muslim issues more often than he has spoken about unionisation, and so the paragraph shouldn't be considerable longer, and shouldn't spend time discussing the views of others.


 * "What I'm having trouble with is seeing the justification for cherry-picking a quotation out of that whole lengthy event, and presenting it to our readers as if it were somehow a summary of one of Affleck's "political views"." As I asked earlier, how then are politicians' Political Views sections formed? Everything they've ever said on a given topic cannot possibly be included and so quotes are used or positions are summarised. It's not wikipedia policy to include the views of every journalists or politician they were debating with for "context." Have I not accurately represented the thrust of Affleck's remarks? Again, what crucial quotation from Affleck have I ommitted?Popeye191 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Earlier you advocated for using direct quotations...
 * No, I really didn't, nor would I. Wikipedia editing convention strongly recommends that we convey what reliable sources say in our own words (in prose).  Sometimes direct quotations can be used, if relevant and required, but should only be used sparingly.  *If* we must use the generally avoided direct quote (and if you'll re-read, you'll see that I said: if we are going to use quotes at all), then we shouldn't add our own personal editorial interpretation to it.
 * ...you're saying direct quotes are a problem
 * No, I didn't say that either. I said above, and I'll quote myself: you are excerpting snippets of quotations (something discouraged, by the way) — Wikipedia prefers that you paraphrase sources, rather than directly quote them.  I did find your quote to be a problem for another reason, however, because it was a: partial quote that couldn't possibly be less informative and without explanatory context.  I stand by that. (And please read the documentation Wiki-linked to the word "quotations" above, and also WP:MOSQUOTE. You'll find it helpful.)
 * ...his words represent his opinion
 * Yes, they do! When taken in total, with context. But when you take just the fragment you took, with no indication about what he was referring to, you are conveying nothing to our readers.  Please keep in mind that our readers will not have already watched the whole debate like you have.  The specific fragment (still misquoted, by the way) simply is not self-contained and understandable as it is now.


 * I asked you what political view of Affleck's you hoped to convey to our readers from the debate. Having read your responses, you are telling me that by reading only this:
 * The reader will somehow come away with:
 * Really? Have I not accurately represented the thrust of Affleck's remarks? No; you have not, with your very short excerpt. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Have I not accurately represented the thrust of Affleck's remarks? No; you have not, with your very short excerpt. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Have I not accurately represented the thrust of Affleck's remarks? No; you have not, with your very short excerpt. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "you are extracting a couple (incorrectly transcribed) quotations" I just listened again to the video, and the source has transcribed him verbatim except for an "and" before "yet somehow". I've added the extra word to the quotation.


 * The draft as it currently stands: In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He said that "more than a billion" Muslims are not "fanatical" and later added, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."


 * * Are the current sources in accordance with wikipedia policy?
 * * Is the description of the context now accurate (" a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam")?
 * * Are Affleck's words accurately transcribed?
 * * Are the surrounding words without bias or interpretation ("He said that...and later added")?
 * * Has Affleck's position during this converation been misrepresented? If so, which quotation do you think makes a different point and should be included?Popeye191 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Stepping back a little to the core quote, corrected, with wikilinks removed from within quotations per WP:MOS, and with the only necessary citation at this time, we have "a draft" which says this:
 * In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He asked, "how about the more than a billion people who are not fanatical, who don't punish women", and later added, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."Cited to this.
 * Are you sure that informs our readers with encyclopedic information about political views held by Affleck? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sometimes direct quotations can be used, if relevant and required, but should only be used sparingly." I think that this is such a case. We're having trouble paraphrasing what he said - reports of the encounter use mostly direct quotes and the reliable sources that rephrase his words are opinion pieces that are biased in one direction or another.


 * Thanks, I've now read WP:MOSQUOTE. Looking at that, I think quotes might be an issue elsewhere in article but that's a problem for another day...


 * I was only articulating my interpretation of his viewpoint for you, not suggesting it was suitable paraphrasing for the article itself.


 * "Are you sure that informs our readers with encyclopedic information about political views held by Affleck?" Yes, I think it would be a useful addition to this paragraph. So are you agreeable, with the extended quote and the new source you've added, to include these sentences in the paragraph?


 * In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He asked, "how about the more than a billion people who are not fanatical, who don't punish women", and later added, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."Cited to this.Popeye191 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you what "political view" of Affleck's, expressed by him in that discussion, you wanted to convey to our readers, so that I could help you develop that content. But if you'd rather not, that's fine.
 * Once again, using a direct quotation isn't the issue with which I'm concerned. Using a quote that doesn't inform our readers about anything regarding Affleck's political views is the issue.  If I were a reader who knew nothing about the debate other than what I've just been told (that it's a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam), and I read just that small portion of what Affleck said, I would be totally confused.  What is Affleck saying about those billion people? What liberal principles are we talking about? What is all this about invading "Muslim countries" or invading "ours"?  Our what, and who is this "our"?  So when you ask me if I'm "agreeable" to adding informative content, which this is not, what am I to say?  You apparently disagree that it is uninformative as well as confusing; would you be adverse to asking for a 3rd opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm happy to get more opinions on this.


 * "What is Affleck saying about those billion people?" He's saying that they're not religious fanatics and don't punish women.
 * "What liberal principles are we talking about?" There is a common consensus on the main principles of liberalism and they don't need to be expanded upon in this section. The wikipedia article on liberalism is linked to earlier in the section ("It combines liberal ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.") If you want to include it, the previously used Salon reference about this discussion says, "Two of the most fundamental, guiding principles of Liberalism are tolerance and equality."
 * What is all this about invading "Muslim countries" or invading "ours"? Countries with a Muslim majority, and the United States (or other Western countries with Judeo-Christian majorities). The reader can decide which he meant. We could include sources that have interpreted his comments - but they're opinion pieces and so I think there would be bias involved.


 * After reading back through everything so far, this is my summary of the issues:


 * You originally expressed concerns that Maher and Harris were being demonised by poor quoting/paraphrasing, a lack of context and biased sourcing. No living people other than Affleck are mentioned now, and Maher and Harris will not be demonised if these sentences are included in the article.


 * You argued that there wasn't context for the quotes. Currently, thanks to your help, the description of it as "a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam" is accurate, clear and concise.


 * You were concerned about fragments and partial quotes but later edited to the quote yourself so that it now reads as a full sentence.


 * You don't think that Affleck's comments would inform the reader, constitute a notable position or a political view. Earlier in the discussion, you said: "I recommended finding better sources which describe Affleck's general views on religion ... If you just want to include content that conveys that Affleck holds views that are pro-religious-freedom and anti-(insert flavor of religion here)-phobic, that's fine, if it can be done without citing sources or inserting content which inaccurately demonize other living people." That suggests that you think his views in this discussion could be characterised as pro-religious freedom or 'about religion'.


 * At the least, it can be said that these sentences inform the reader of the views of Affleck (a self-proclaimed liberal) on the relationship betweens liberalism and Islam. The political view expressed is that, unlike many liberals, he doesn't think that a majority of Muslims hold fanatical beliefs, doesn't think that Islam/those who practice it oppress/punish women, and thinks Americans/Westerners should take look at the reasons for their own unsavory behaviour before hypocritically pointing the finger at others.Popeye191 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A more accurate summary of my original concerns with your rewrite of the content is: it added content not supported or conveyed by the cited sources (in violation of WP:V); it left out content required for a neutral presentation of the subject matter (in violation of WP:NPOV); it cited low-quality sources for assertion of fact regarding living persons (in violation of WP:BLP and WP:RS).  Note that I've never raised a concern about "biased sourcing", only about the low-quality of the sources you introduced.  Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit "biased sources", only sources that lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  Per WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.  As you began to propose new wording, I further became concerned that you were introducing quotations of Affleck's comments without providing sufficient context to allow the reader to understand what he was saying, or to what he was responding.  That is still an active concern of mine.  (Please note that "relationship between liberal principles and Islam" describes the topic of the overall discussion, but does not convey the context of any individual quotation from that discussion.)  You, on the other hand, expressed valid concerns that the content not be overly long, and that it remain focused on the subject of this article (Affleck), rather than get bogged down in the complicated debate itself.
 * You were concerned about fragments and partial quotes but later edited to the quote yourself so that it now reads as a full sentence.
 * No. What I did was take your proposed snippet — a partial quote from Affleck — your "core quote, corrected, with wikilinks removed from within quotations per WP:MOS, and with the only necessary citation" and asked you yet again, "Are you sure that informs our readers with encyclopedic information about political views held by Affleck?"  The obvious implication is that it certainly does not.
 * you think his views in this discussion could be characterised as pro-religious freedom or 'about religion'.
 * No. To further clarify for you what I was advising: If you want to present actual views held by Affleck, find sources where he clearly states those views, instead of a source where he is less clear (requiring our interpretation), and where he demonizes people (calling people 'racist'), and admits he doesn't understand the arguments, etc.  In other words, a source other than that heated discussion on an HBO comedy talk show.  Hopefully that is clearer.  If, however, you are determined to cite this HBO discussion because "this Maher segment is the most he has expanded on his views religion, and it should absolutely be included. I'd guess it got more coverage than anything else he has said in the political realm, and is notable for that reason", then you can not also stipulate that we're only going to include Affleck's side of the debate, and only Affleck's arguments, and only Affleck's accusations without the accompanying responses.  My advice to you was if you want to say that Affleck (for example) holds views that are pro-religious-freedom or anti-(insert flavor of religion here)-phobic, that's fine ... just find reliable sources which affirmatively state it, instead of the television appearance you've chosen.


 * You've sparked another new concern with your most recent response:
 * There is a common consensus on the main principles of liberalism and they don't need to be expanded upon in this section. The wikipedia article on liberalism is linked to earlier in the section ("It combines liberal ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.") If you want to include it, the previously used Salon reference about this discussion says, "Two of the most fundamental, guiding principles of Liberalism are tolerance and equality."
 * I've suspected that you don't want actual liberal values mentioned in relation to Affleck's views here, ever since you "trimmed" them out with this edit. This is confirmed with your recent remarks.  Some observations:  The link you refer to actually goes instead to Modern liberalism in the United States, which never once mentions "tolerance".  (You'll have to go to our "Liberalism" article to find that.)  You say we don't need to mention the liberal values being discussed with Affleck because there is presumably a "common consensus" or understanding as to what they are? Really?  Are you aware that the same Salon source you just quoted goes on to say exactly the opposite of what you are asserting: While these principles sound like an easy enough blueprint to follow, they become muddied when contemplating certain issues in today’s complex, modern world. One of those issues is Islam.  Is there possibly another reason that you don't want the liberal values Affleck was debating to be mentioned?  Keep in mind that the source you just referred to also says:
 * These are some of the points raised by the panelists with whom Affleck was arguing against in that discussion. How do you propose we best convey Affleck's point of view, since he's a liberal, on these very liberal concerns raised in that discussion? The two sentences you've proposed, consisting only of fragmented, incomplete quotation snippets, certainly don't convey such information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These are some of the points raised by the panelists with whom Affleck was arguing against in that discussion. How do you propose we best convey Affleck's point of view, since he's a liberal, on these very liberal concerns raised in that discussion? The two sentences you've proposed, consisting only of fragmented, incomplete quotation snippets, certainly don't convey such information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources: The content is now supported by a cited source (a youtube link added by you). Please specify anything in the current draft that requires another citation and I will add one straight away.


 * Views of others: "you can not also stipulate that we're only going to include Affleck's side of the debate, and only Affleck's arguments, and only Affleck's accusations without the accompanying responses." This is a section about the political views of the actor Ben Affleck, not an account of a debate or the views of anyone else. Neither Maher or Harris are being demonised by the current draft, and there is no valid reason to include their views.


 * Quality of his arguments: "find sources where he clearly states those views, instead of a source where he is less clear (requiring our interpretation), and where he demonizes people (calling people 'racist'), and admits he doesn't understand the arguments, etc. In other words, a source other than that heated discussion on an HBO comedy talk show." His views were widely-reported, are clearly stated and can stand alone without interpretation. People are not being demonized in this wikipedia article. It's unfair to dismiss Bill Maher's show as a reliable source for gathering information about people's political views. Many well-known politicans have appeared and discussed their political views.


 * Meaning of liberalism: "the same Salon source you just quoted goes on to say exactly the opposite of what you are asserting" No, it doesn't. It clearly states that those are the values of liberalism but concedes that they can be difficult to apply to the context of the modern world (for example, there are often tensions beteween those principles and Islam). I'll repeat it - the main principles of liberalism are generally understood and no one is coming to Affleck's wikipedia page to find out what liberalism means.


 * Context: "Please note that "relationship between liberal principles and Islam" describes the topic of the overall discussion, but does not convey the context of any individual quotation from that discussion ... I've suspected that you don't want actual liberal values mentioned in relation to Affleck's views here ... Is there possibly another reason that you don't want the liberal values Affleck was debating to be mentioned?" Yikes. You're implying that I am trying to present this information in a particular way and that is not that case. I've now changed the link to the main Liberalism article. I still don't think the main principles of liberalism need to be spoonfed to the reader but, if necessary, I'm okay with specific values being mentioned in a concise phrase (unlike the longer list I removed from your edit). How about, "a discussion about whether there are anti-democratic, anti-liberal aspects of Islam" or "a discussion about whether Islam promotes intolerance"? Do you have other suggestions for how to phrase it?Popeye191 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just gone through the transcript line by line and copied out everything Affleck said. Based on what has been said earlier in this conversation, we don't want to include any references to race as that may demonize living people. Aside from that, I think I've covered his views in the draft below. Hopefully you think this better expresses the particular concerns with Islam Affleck, Harris and Maher were referring to. Let me know if I've missed anything out or need more citations.

"[In response to the argument that within the meme of ‘Islamophobia,’ every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people] So hold on – are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You are the interpreter of that ... I’m asking you. So you’re saying – if I criticize that, you’re saying that Islamophobia is not a real thing? ... That’s big of you [to say it's a problem that people are bigoted towars Muslims] ... [I'm hostile to this concept because] it’s gross! It’s racist! It’s like saying, ‘I’m not your shifty Jew.' ...  You guys are saying if you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles like freedom of speech ...  Like we are endowed by our forefathers to inalienable rights like all men are created equal ...  Of course we do [have to be able to criticise bad ideas]. No liberal doesn't want ... [In response to the statement that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas] Jesus! It’s not a fact. That's just an ugly thing to say ... How about more than a billion people who aren't fanatical, who don't punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray 5 times a day, and don't do any of the things you're saying of all Muslims? It's stereotyping ... Some of them do bad things and you're painting the whole religion with that broad brush ... A billion five [don't hold pernicious beliefs] ... [The notion of killing people for leaving Islam is] horrible ... The people who would actually believe in that you murder someone if they leave Islam is not the majority of Muslims at all... [Jihadists are] horribly bad people .. What are you basing [claims that many Muslims "are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system"] on? ... What is your solution [to the problem of people being afraid to speak out in case in they will be killed]? To condemn Islam? To do what? We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we're exempted from these things because they're not really a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that's why we invaded Iraq ... I'm simply telling you that I disagree with you ... I don’t understand your ideas. Your argument is, "You know, black people, they shoot each other" ... I would think it's a big deal [to kill people for leaving a religion] no matter what [religion they had belonged do]. [If there were similar problems in Catholicism] I wouldn't say it's all Brazilians, or I wouldn't say, "Well, Ted Bundy did this. God damn these gays, they're all trying to eat each other." ... ISIS couldn't fill a AA ballpark in Charleston, West Virginia and you want to make a career out of ISIS, ISIS, ISIS ... There is those things. There is ISIS, there is global jihadists. The question is the degree to which you're willing to say, because I've witnessed this behavior, which we all object to on the part of these people, I'm willing to flatly condemn those of you I don't know and never met ... It's not a minority, it's the second biggest religion in the world ... [If Filipinos were selling people into slavery] You would criticize the people who are doing it, not the Philippines. A Filipino kid who lives on the streets has nothing to do with that. These are different things.

"In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He objected to jihadism, the imposition of the death penalty for apostasy and the punishment of women, but said that those actions were not representive of "more than a billion" Muslims. He later said, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."Cited to this.Popeye191 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for attempting to add a little context to facilitate better understanding. Along that same vein, I would suggest the following minor modifications, resulting in this tentative content:
 * In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He agreed that jihadism, the imposition of the death penalty for apostasy, the punishment of women, homosexuals, adulterers and free-thinkers are objectionable, but he strongly disagreed that those actions were representive of, or supported by, the majority of more than 1.5 billion Muslims. He later said, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."Cited to this.
 * On a related matter, do you intend to pursue 'Good Article' or 'Featured Article' status with this article? If so, that process might provide the 3rd-opinion input we've considered without having to specifically petition for it.  Xenophrenic (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've nominated it for a GA review, so hopefully someone will weigh in.
 * Did Affleck specifically object to the treatment of homosexuals, adulturers or free-thinkers? I'm sure he would condemn that sort of treatment if asked outright, but I'm not sure that the statement is supported by his words here. Affleck expressed disagreement with the examples I mentioned:
 * Jihadism: "[Jihadists are] horribly bad people ... There is ISIS, there is global jihadists. The question is the degree to which you're willing to say, because I've witnessed this behavior, which we all object to on the part of these people,..."
 * Punishment of women: "How about more than a billion people who aren't fanatical, who don't punish women?"
 * Imposition of the death penalty for apostasy: "[The notion of killing people for leaving Islam is] horrible ... I would think it's a big deal [to kill people for leaving a religion] no matter what [religion they had belonged to]."


 * This is going to sound like nitpicking but is there a particular reason why you've changed the verbs to "agreed" and "strongly disagreed"? The more active verbs "objected to" and "said" make sense to me because his positions are being presented without reference to the arguments of others. Even in the actual debate, he said "we all object to...." and stated, "How about more than a billion people who aren't...", rather than saying "I agree" or "I disagree" in response to someone else.Popeye191 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Affleck's expressed objections, specific or lumped together, look at the rest of his sentence you cite as an objection to "punishment of women". He says, How about more than a billion people who aren't fanatical, who don't punish women, ... and don't do any of the things you're saying of all Muslims?  The "any of the things you're saying" are iterated by Maher starting at the 10-second mark, and again by Harris at the 1-minute mark, before Affleck at the 2:55 mark asks about the "more than a billion people" who don't do any of those things.  Were we not interpreting Affleck's statement as disagreement with the action of "punishing women ... and any of those things you're saying"?  Or just the women part?  As for changing the verbs, I changed "he objected to X, Y and Z" to "He agreed X, Y and Z were objectionable" as more informative.  While both forms convey that Affleck objects to those actions, my wording also lets the reader know that this was not a point of contention or disagreement between the panelists. Likewise, I changed "said the actions weren't representative" to "disagreed the actions were representative" - both convey that Affleck doesn't think those actions apply the majority, but my change also conveys to the reader that this was the point of contention or disagreement.  The "strongly" modifier is self-explanatory, and I briefly considered replacing "representative of" with "supported by", but left both in.  Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the treatment of homosexuals, free thinkers and adulterers had been discussed earlier but Affleck didn't involve himself in the conversation until minutes later. The focus of the conversation when he became involved was apostasy and jihaadism. I think it's iffy to say he objected to the mistreatment of homosexuals, adulterers and free thinkers (even though I think it's clear he would object). Affleck made the comment about how Muslims "don't do any of the things" Maher/Harris (one of them? both?) talk about in support of previous speaker Kristoff, who had just spoken about jihaadism, apostasy and freedom of expression. Also, while I infer that he thinks the punishment of women is unacceptable behaviour, he doesn't explicitly reject it. He explicitly and specifically objects to both jihaadism and the death penalty for apostasy, so it is probably safest to use those two issues as examples.


 * "My wording also lets the reader know that this was not a point of contention or disagreement between the panelists." The reader doesn't need to know that there were other panelists, nevermind on what they agreed or disagreed.

Popeye191 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * but Affleck didn't involve himself in the conversation until minutes later.
 * That is incorrect. He got involved earlier than that, back in the first 2 minutes when they were still discussing the whole litany (a "motherload") of illiberal ideas, and they argued over whether it was islamophobic, gross and racist. Then they moved on to discuss apostasy and jihadism.
 * The reader doesn't need to know that there were other panelists, nevermind on what they agreed or disagreed.
 * The reader does, however, need to know what Affleck agreed or disagreed with, since this article is about him. Hence my verb improvements.  At a minimum, we should convey this:
 * In 2014, Affleck engaged in a discussion about the relationship between liberal principles and Islam. He agreed that jihadism, the imposition of the death penalty for apostasy, the punishment of women, homosexuals, adulterers and free-thinkers are objectionable, but he strongly disagreed that those actions were representive of, or supported by, the majority of more than 1.5 billion Muslims. He later said, "We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us, by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more Muslim countries than they’ve invaded ours, by an awful lot. And yet somehow we’re exempted from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in."Cited to this.
 * And after additional review of the discussion, it is also clear that Affleck is critical of those who keep harping about "ISIS, ISIS, ISIS", when he dismisses them as not able to "fill a AA ballpark". Should that view also be mentioned? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you want a laundry list of the illiberal aspects of Islam to be included in this article, even if Affleck did not specifically address or denounce them. The only two issues he explicitly addressed and objected to were jihadism and the death penalty for apostasy. At no point did he directly respond to a comment about the treatment of homosexuals, adulterers and free-thinkers, or clearly refer to those issues in his answers. It is wooly to try to imply that he objected to their treatment. We should be erring on the side of caution. There is already enough strong evidence to support his beliefs.
 * "The reader does, however, need to know what Affleck agreed or disagreed with" If he says or states something, it can be safely assumed that he agrees with himself. If he strongly argues for something, the liklihood is that he agrees with his own argument.
 * "when he dismisses them as not able to "fill a AA ballpark" It's already covered in Sentence 2 in his objection to jihadism, and his assertion that such behaviour is not representative of the overwhelming majority.
 * How do we go about getting the opinion of others? We're going around in circles.Popeye191 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you want a laundry list of the illiberal aspects of Islam to be included in this article...
 * Oh gosh no, that would consume far too much article real estate to properly cover all sides of something so extensive and complicated. I am only advocating that we convey content from this Real Time with Bill Maher panel discussion; an event you insist should absolutely be included. I'd guess it got more coverage than anything else he has said....  You do understand why it got so much coverage, right?  If you can't tell from the headlines of almost every article covering the discussion, then I'll spell it out: Maher and Harris criticized liberals for tolerating a "laundry list" of anti-liberal positions widely held by Muslims, and Affleck disagreed that these anti-liberal positions were held by more than a tiny minority, and to suggest otherwise was "racist and gross" and "an ugly thing to say".  All of this was in the first 2.5 minutes, before any explicit talk about just jihadism or apostasy.
 * At no point did he directly respond to a comment about the treatment of homosexuals, adulterers and free-thinkers...
 * As I just explained, his strongest responses in the whole discussion, calling people "racist", "gross", "ugly" ... exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" — these are the things the media latched on to and wrote about, and made a big deal about — all happened in the first couple minutes, before Affleck went on to explicitly (and quite unnecessarily) condemn just violent murder. It seems as though you don't want Afflecks objections, the ones that caused this 10-minute discussion to become so widely commented upon, to be mentioned.
 * Regarding "ISIS, ISIS, ISIS", you say It's already covered in Sentence 2 in his objection to jihadism...
 * Not really. Note that Affleck lists them separately when he says (at the 8:55 time mark) "There is those things, there is ISIS, there's global jihadists; the question is the degree to which you are willing to say, 'because I've witnessed this behavior — which we all object to — on the part of these people, I'm willing to flatly condemn those of you I don't know and have never met'."  Since Affleck separates them (as does Harris, just 20 seconds later), do you have any objections to adding Affleck's ISIS, ISIS, ISIS quote?
 * How do we go about getting the opinion of others?
 * One way would be to ask for it at WP:3O, if we can agree on how to word the question. Another would be to raise the issue during the Good Article review, which by default should elicit additional input.  A more comprehensive method would be to open an WP:RfC here on this Talk page.  Just some suggestions, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)