Talk:Militant atheism

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

I am concerned of the presentation of non-believers on wikipedia overall. The anti-theism page has long arguments of people trying to get references to violence on the page. This page is despite the short "concerns" section largely devoted to describe "militant atheism" bordering on the atrocities of stalinism with multiple links of persecutions of christians features in the article.

Yet one cannot find references to the atrocities committed by christians in the main pages on Christianity.

I have the very strong impression that the presentation of non-believers is NPOV in the sense that the old stereotype that non-believers are heritics, evil, infidels and not worthy is perpetuated and that they are intentionally linked to violence and harm that is only mildly associated, such as stalinism.

If the notion of wikipedia is to put the atrocities of each group on the front page, then that should be consistent and the persecution of non-believers in religions should be featured as prominently as the persecution of christians in stalinism and maoism is featured here. It muddles atheism and the general dogma-inducing tendencies of Stalin and Mao. Stalin and Mao prosecuted every group that would not convert to their dogma, including atheists in opposition, such as Trotzky. Yet there is a narrative being pushed that tries to paint stalinism as a primarily anti-religious pogrom, primarily to paint criticism of religion in a negative light.

For example numerous christian apologist have tried to link Dawkins criticism of religion to Stalinism, which is ludicrous. That feel is very much implied in this article when soviet "militant atheism" and Dawkins appear in the very same sentence!

Also there is no page on militant christinity, militant islam, militant hinduism etc, clearly singling out atheism as militant. However studies show that in the US the rate of violent crime is among the lowest among unbelievers. This isn't a fix for this page but there is a larger overhaul needed that levels this out. Frankly I think the word militant atheism is very questionable and deserves less of a wikipedia entry than say militant islamists (which incidentally does not exist and is redirected to islamic terror, which is not well related).

If it was me I'd simply remove the article. The notion of "militant atheism" isn't interesting and distinct enough to "anti-theism" to warrant a separate page, but there is a lot of information here that may be worth merging. Non-believers have very scattered labels and perhaps the whole topic needs to be reorganised. For example anti-theism and "militant atheism" could be a subsection to secular humanism, or to non-believers etc. 141.213.171.19 (talk)

This article is a POV pushing piece full of OR and SYN. I will support a deletion or merging the notable parts into anti-theism.--LexCorp (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I support a deletion or merge into the antitheism page. I'd also like to address another issue, while we are on the topic of antitheism; why is it that anti-atheism redirects the reader to the page Criticisms of Atheisms, but antitheism doesn't redirect you to the page Criticisms of Theism? Further, why in the world isn't there even a PAGE with the topic Criticisms of Theism?! This whole thing stinks to high hell of POV.

Issues that should be reconciled: 1. A deletion or merge of Militant Atheism to the Antitheism page 2. If that can't be done than I suggest a creation of a Militant Christianity, Militant Islam etc page, it is not difficult to find examples 3. The creation of a Crtiticisms of Theism page, I'm most surprised that this page doesn't even exist at the moment! 4. Out of fairness for all parties involved, and in the pursuit of great justice, if items 2 and 3 are not addressed and remedied I support a deletion of the pages Militant Atheism AND Antitheism. I mean, what is this? Conservapedia?! Azz from oz (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH maybe. WP have an article on Link but not on Red link. The article adds "militant" to the valid topic of Atheism, why is there no Peaceful atheism? I'll put the article on my observation list. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. You guys are terrible. This article is encyclopedia worthy, imho. Or at least the topic is. Beam 05:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil. Also if you look at the talk archive you will find that this is not exactly a new problem. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article should definitely be merged with antitheism. Antitheism (the view that some or all religions are harmful) can indeed motivate a person to violence if they get desperate enough. Mere atheism (not having a good reason to believe in personal gods), however, cannot motivate anyone to do violence. Even strong atheism (the outright conviction that there are no personal gods) cannot motivate anyone to do violence... unless they simultaneously held the (clinically insane) opinion that correcting a bit of misinformation is a cause worth killing for. Obhave (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about the use of the term

I would suggest that Larry Trask's assertion that the term militant is never used in relation to Christianity should be removed since it is demonstrably false. It has been used in the discussion of this page (above) and Google produces over 4,000 results for the exact phrase. Since this article seeks to define militant atheism and not the views of Larry Trask, the inclusion of his false assertion is both irrelevant and breaches NPOV. Catwizzle (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Show a link from a reliable source to demonstrate what you say. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Larry Trask asserts that the term militant is never used in relation to Christianity. As the term "militant Christianity" appears in the discussion of this page, and as Google produces about 38,200 results for the exact phrase "militant Christianity", then we can categorically assert that the term militant is used in relation to Christianity, and that the phrase "militant Christianity" has appeared on the internet about 38,200 times. This information may be verified by reading the discussion of this page, and by entering the exact term "militant Christianity" into the Google search engine. To give one example from 38,200: the term was used by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, in an article in The News Of The World dated 14 February 2010 Catwizzle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

Larry Trask does not actually say that the word "militant" is never used in relation to Christianity. He says it is not applied to particular kinds of activities which Christians might engage in - door to door evangelism, for example. As it stands the summary of Trask is misleading and I will amend it accordingly. --Dannyno (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole article strikes me as a hatchet job --- for example, what is the quote that "Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense..." supposed to mean? Surely any atheist believes that religious claims are false, and "moderate" atheists (however they might be defined) are not the ones who think their position is unsupported by the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is doomed from the start because "militant atheism" is not so much the name of phenomenon as it is a piece of rhetoric. It's like "feminazi." There would be no point in trying to describe the feminazi movement. There is no movement. It's a rhetorical dart used by those who oppose the real movement, feminism. The same is true in this case. If this page must exist, it should deal with the history of and the controversy surrounding the phrase.(Pescofish (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

Good point there by Pescofish.Obhave (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Coat rack

See WP:COATRACK for Wikipedia's definition of a coatrack article. From the first time I have seen this article (many months ago) the article has had this problem. I have given it some time to improve, but that has not happened. At the moment, almost three quarters of the pure text in the body are not about "militant atheism" in general (whatever that is; apparently there is no proper definition, and it is just atheism that is "militant", i.e. strong) but about suppression of religion that occurred in the Soviet Union. The article appears designed to attract general readers and present them with a picture of atheists as evil.

The little general content is totally redundant with existing articles such as Criticism of atheism, antireligion and antitheism.

Since I don't believe an article with this kind of title, which has simply been made up from two constituents in the same way as militant vegetarianism, moderate Catholicism, stark raving theism or homicidal communism, has a place in an encyclopedia in the first place, I am not going to fix the coatrack problem by extending the current article. On the other hand, retitling it to reflect its real contents also makes no sense because Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union already exists. Hans Adler 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try some editing to make it about use of the term, as noted above there is already discussions about persecution of christians in Soviet union etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Bloc

There is no need for the detail about the soviet bloc, it is about the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union which already exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello IRWolfie, surely we do not need to copy all of the information present in that article here. However, the definition of militant atheism, which the source states "as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opoum and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control of eliminate religion." As such, we must provide a summary of some of these issues in this article, not only for the Soviet Bloc, but for others who espoused this philosophy. This is similar to the article on Islam and violence, which contains sections regarding similar issues pertaining to that religion. I agree with you that the information in the Usage in other Contexts section needs to be incorporated in the article. For example, it might be helpful to start a section on militant atheism in the French Revolution. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of information in this section appears to be taken from the cited sources without properly indicating that it has been quoted directly from those sources. This needs fixing. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of this section states "Militant atheism was effectively the state religion of the Soviet Union, with the Communist Party functioning as an established church.[5][6][18]" This is poorly sourced. The first two references [5] [6] are by the same author (H. J. Berman) who gives two almost identical statements ("militant atheism was the offical religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the communist party was the established church"). At least one of the references is redundant, and the statement appears to represent an unsupported interpretation by one person. The third reference [18] refers to a call by Lenin for a programme of 'militant atheism' and 'militant materlialism' but makes no interpretation of militant atheism as a state religion.Jkhwiki (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jkhwiki. Your account is relatively new to Wikipedia. Also your account appears to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I apologize in advance if this is incorrect but could you please clarify.. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I did indeed create the account because I happened to come across this article on Militant Atheism and was so concerned by its lack of neutrality and poor definition that I wanted to comment. Since I am a new user and the topic is controversial, I have not edited the article itself, nor did I participate in the vote to split it. My contributions have been confined to pointing out on this talk page some of the problems that I, along with others, see with the article. If this is somehow inconsistent with standard Wiki practice, I'd be glad to be corrected. Hope that clarifies things.Jkhwiki (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

VERY ONE SIDED

wikipedia is neutral. let's keep it that way. the inclusion of communism in this article is absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of article as coatrack

I am unhappy about the way this article is going, as edited recently by Anupam. It is (again) being used as a coatrack on which to hang one editor's opinion of the evils of the Soviet Union, using the term "militant atheism" as an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism. The label "militant atheism" is being applied by the editor, rather than taken from the sources. This is not about militant atheism, it is about the Soviet Union. This material does not belong in this article. I think it's time for a radical pruning, to reduce the article to material that actually discusses the subject. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Snalwibma, I would request that you please assume good faith. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia concerning Christianity and violence, Christian terrorism, Christian fundamentalism, Islam and violence, Islamic terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism. I have never once stated that "militant atheism is an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism" as you have asserted. This article discusses one form of atheism and is contrasted from other movements of atheism, such as Atheism 3.0 or Secular Humanism, for example. As for the references, you can gladly check them. Each one of them makes reference to the topic of militant atheism. I understood that this was important so not to violate WP:SYNTH. In fact, I inserted the original quotes in all the references I added to demonstrate my adherence to the original language of the sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 09:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Anupam. To clarify - "militant atheism is an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism" is my own opinion of what seems to be happening in the article, not something I am suggesting you said. But on the main point - I am registering a concern, and I'd be interested to see what others think. I am concerned because this article was hijacked a couple of years ago and turned into a rabid "atheism is bad" rant, based on one editor's opinion that x, y, and z were clearly "militant atheists" (see talk page archives). The article strayed further and further from the topic, and became a rant about the evils of the Soviet Union. I would be worried if it went down that road again, and I fear that your edits are heading that way. I've no time just now to check all your references, but it is important that each one of them is clearly about "militant atheism", using something very close to that actual phrase, and that it is not your interpretation of what they say that places them within the "militant atheism" field. What do others think? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification User:Snalwibma. Yes, the references in place are clearly about "militant atheism", using that actual phrase. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why a section on religious persecution under the soviets. there are already articles which discusses these things. It appears that what could be attributed to marxist doctrine is instead being attributed to militant atheism. (where this article has defined militant atheism to be the belief that religion can be demonstrated to be false and is harmful). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:IRWolfie-, ur opinions on what or what should not be attributed do not matter; rather, our job here on Wikipedia is to simply transmit information based on reliable sources per WP:V. Nevertheless, one of the sources used in the article even states that "one fundamental element of that system was its propogation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism." In other words, militant atheism was one fundamental element of Marxism-Leninism, and therefore can be discussed on its own merit. The sources used in the article attribute the phenomenon to "militant atheism." Furthermore, the definition of militant atheism in the introduction of the article also makes reference to the "desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief." I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

as you have just pointed out, it was Marxist doctrine and dogma that led to the attempts to wipe out religion. I also find it odd that all the related articles on the soviets linked do not mention militant atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, citing the appropriate reference, one tenant of Marxism-Leninism was militant atheism. However, Marxism-Leninism contains other ideologies as well. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the improvement of the article on militant atheism. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Soviet marxist-leninism's particular form of atheism was "scientific atheism", or at least that's what they called it. "Militant atheism" was not a form of atheism, but a label for the activities of groups like the League of Militant Atheists. --Dannyno (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Section appears to have no relevance to militant atheism.

[1] I performed this edit to remove what appears to be a synthesis to link this material to militant atheism when there is no explicit link. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:IRWolfie-, I can understand why you removed much of the material in that section and will accept your removal at this time. However, the information in those sources did discuss science under militant atheism; nevertheless I can understand that we do not want to violate WP:SYNTH. I did however, restore a sentence that made explicit reference to militant atheism. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears the dispute is regarding addition of content regarding the Big Bang and genetics. The content was removed per WP:SYNTH. This is an incorrect application of the policy. WP:SYNTH applies to conclusions derived from sources. That atheists opposed the Big Bang is a fact and not synth. Whether the Big Bang and genetics are appropriate content for this article is determined by direct relevancy, or in cases where the reader benefits from background info, indirect relevancy. Whether or not content is relevant to an article is determined by consensus. I believe the Big Bang and genetics provide valuable background info and should be re-added. Lionel (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The only defense pro-atheist editors have for showing a position they defend and try and deny as having preached hate and intolerance and is more guilty of mass murder and human rights violations than the religions they scorn. IS that the exact phrase "militant atheist" is not used to describe it. As if their hate is somehow masked by such a technicality. So much for honorable people standing up to bigotry and hate? All bigotry and hate. However this is not lost on their remaining victims. As a matter of fact this is being addressed and worked on.[2] And we have plenty of time for this. Here is an article [3], [4] about Museums built to promote the anti-religious bigotry of The League of the Militant Atheists. I would hope someone here would pursue contacting it's author Crispin Paine [5] as from his article it appears there should be at least a section of this article dedicated to the whole phenomenon of Militant Atheists converted places of worship into museums. Bigotry is bigotry saying that people did not do evil calling themselves atheists and then calling the whole thing a myth is sociopathic.[6]

Promoting hatred is promoting hatred. But then whats obvious has been lost here. Intolerance states one is not allowed to disagree and then goes about censoring and sullying those whom criticize its perspective. Because the true believers the zealots the militants will not allow or tolerate any opposing opinions, here's an example [7] look at the posters comments to this blog and see that there are atheists professing hatred OUTRIGHT. This is whats happening on this article. And other "tolerant" atheists are enablers by opposing positions critical of them. Only their opposition should be criticized whatever criticism that is going to be allowed will be whitewashed and sanitized of any ugly truths that people here should not have to suffer. But then for this whole scam to continue pro-atheist here have to keep translating безбожников as Godless when it is most commonly translated as atheist. [8]. Not right or wrong, just technicality. Something to also note. As this source very clearly points out - Homo Sapiens 1900, allot of killing and mass murder has been done in the name of reason and scientific progress (remember philosophy is about explaining things without using theism but rather instead reason as cause) and was and is done completely free and clear of any religious or theist belief. No one is addressing this here either. Atheist don't have to believe in anything that includes rules as it is obvious that its completely good and honest to used giant wide generalization and blame everything bad on religion but not OK to get the same kind of treatment in return. However militant atheist is not only a very specific term it is also the official title taken about the group in Russia that did the mass murder, and whole sale destruction. Thats not ignorance or bias that's historical fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this rant has to do with the issue at hand; the relevancy of the Big Bang to a wiki article on militant atheism. IRWolfie- (talk)

snore. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In light of User:Lionelt's comments, I would support the re-inclusion of the material into the article as the mentioning of Genetics and Cosmology were examples of how the Soviet Union attempted to "establish an ideologically acceptable view of science" (Entropic Creation). The sources do make reference to the Soviet Union and employ the term "communist atheistic" among other similar ones. In regards to User:LoveMonkey's comments, I've added the journal article as a reference in the article body. I look forward to hearing all of your comments soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, and dangerously close to WP:PA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know this might be an ideal and more respectful interaction if some editors would acknowledge that it is the very definition of Sociopathic illness (which is a very serious psychological disorder) to act without empathy, to treat people whom speak out against mass murder as ranters. To marginalize mass murder and human rights violations while claiming that their behavior is justified because people whom they disagree with and spew hate about might have done similar things. However as was clearly stated before on this article talkpage (though years ago). There is absolutely no record ever in the history of mankind showing where people of religion rounded up and slaughtered atheists. As egotistical as they (atheist)are religious people would simply just not hear the end of it. And it is quite obvious that the burning times is a bogus conspiracy theory. 9 million people, REALLY. They have a point or two on discrimination though, and there I find with them (atheists) common ground and agree that should stop, they (atheist) deserve to have their position and have that position respected (well maybe if they behaved in a respectful way). But thats hardly justified what has been done in the name of their position (millions of deaths to religious peoples {http://www.sras.org/library_religion_russia} and executions like Pavel Florovsky). They appear to have very thin skin but love to be hateful and spew hate and disrespect (i.e. blasphemy). Good to see that concerns about tyranny being established in the name of say a concept like social darwinism [muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of.../31.1.scarfe.pdf] or militant atheism are not valid concerns, no that's just people ranting. Marginalize people and they will marginalize you. They had their way in the East and all anybody got out of it was life was absurd and therefore meaningless (we can't possibly make anything such thing as "meaning" let alone "to our lives" that's just absurd) and that there was no justification for people to not see morality as a set of impediments and that corruption was the way for the enlighten self to go. Mass corruption is what you get. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Nor do they acknowledge this point which we keep posting over and over again..As there indeed are plenty of socialist religious persons. "-- Russian emigres who established our Church fled not socialism but godlessness, militant atheism and persecution. The people who run Venezuela today are not the Soviet state. President Chavez may be a socialist, yes. But he is not an atheist. Moreover, he openly calls himself a believer, does not persecute the Church and does not propagandize atheism. Venezuela today finds itself in a profound social crisis, and something must be done, so I lean towards sympathizing with him. It is not the Church’s lot to involve itself in politics or decide which is better, socialism or capitalism. The Savior commanded us to tend to our neighbor, to help the poor and orphaned. Christianity is not alien to the concept of social justice—unless it is harnessed to godlessness. At the same time, many of our parishioners have a justifiable mistrust of socialists, which is characteristic for ROCOR. Orthodox Christians in Latin America are very politicized, and that’s the way it always was. For instance, during Allende’s time, they fled Chile en masse." [9] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC) LoveMonkey - I respect your opinions, but I'm not sure this is the right place to express them (WP:SOAP),and I fail to see how this expression of them is going to help improve the article on militant atheism. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC) WP:OWN is a policy vio you and your tag team should stop it. I can post sources and positions valid to the subject. Stop trying to Wiki lawyer people into being frustrating when posting sources and information. That is policy abuse. Get an administrator and I will get one and then we can see if they will find it OK for you to attempt to marginalize my points and sources under the idea of SOAPBOX. WP:SOAP makes no such statement and I am in no way in violation of it's points. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC) What on earth are you talking about? Please assume good faith, and stop the personal attacks and unwarranted accusations (What tag team? What do you mean by pointing to WP:OWN? Where is the policy abuse? What wikilawyering?). Stop using this talk page a soapbox on subjects that are at best tangentially relevant to the article. I will go quickly to WP:ANI if you can't behave in a reasonable manner. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Anyone can access the archive and see our previous interactions here. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) LoveMonkey, your comments above accusing atheist editors of being bigots and hatemongers are grossly out of line, beyond simply being a violation of WP:SOAP. Your unsolicited attack of Snalwibma for pointing this out is simply baffling. If this continues, it will result in a report being filed, and that will very likely reflect poorly on you. Please stop. Concentrate on article improvement, via sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Provided a link or source to that comment earlier in discussion. [10] Link title You might be a Militant Atheist if" which explicitly says from atheist poster. "I advocate a true and wholesome HATE towards any religious ideology, and thus call for the absolute destruction of any entity. I am done with diplomatic solutions!!!! I do not suggest violence towards the religious; though I must say I would not condemn it . ." So people are too believe that militant factions of whatever ideology do not harbor hate? Please provide a source for your comments. I really feel that there is some real cold blooded blindness in how pro-atheists are allowed to behave on this article. How they are being allowed to wholesale delete information not because it is invalid but because they have admins here whom are sympathetic to their POV and their POV pushing. So Jess how is it that sourcing and providing an example from an atheist website is WP:SOAP. Where does the policy say that? As the title of the link contains the title of this article. How is it that I have not included it in the article and yet your here making a case that I am in violation of Wikipolicy? No, this is just more dodging and projecting and avoiding what people can see and hear for themselves about the subject of this article. How is it opinion if I provide examples of the exact conduct in questions? As if wikipolicy will make that atheist's sentiments go away. As I at no point nor any source I've given has stated that all atheists are militant atheists. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Stop. If you make another comment which does not concern article improvement, or which actively disparages other editors on this page, I will take this to ANI. Your comments above are inappropriate. Period. We don't need to discuss it any further. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please take it to my talk page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence failed verification

The opening sentence states:

“ Militant atheism, also referred to as atheist fundamentalism,[1] is a term which refers to the ideology of hostility towards religion. ”

I checked the source and what it actually says is:

“ militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opoum and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control of eliminate religion ”

The definition in the source is only about Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and not about the term in general. The article includes people such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who have nothing to do with Bolshevism as far as I know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I check the source again, it says that militant atheism only lasted 30 years fading away by 1978. I can't help but wonder if the article lacks focus and is a mish-mash of WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Did you read the sentence following the first one? Many articles in Wikipedia don't include sources in the introductory sentence but I have added the original source and original quote just in case. Also, with regards to your second sentence, remember that when the second source is talking about the thirty years, it is in reference to "militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks," not militant atheism in general, which you stated above in your first comment. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the references to "atheist fundamentalism" in the opening definition. The first source does not mention "militant atheism", and second is merely a quote from someone using both terms synonymously. If there is a source to the effect that these terms are commonly used synonymously, then bring it forward. Otherwise, this is WP: undue. --Dannyno (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see my edit has been reverted, reason given "seek consensus". I was of course being bold. This requires serious discussion since the cited sources do not in fact support the bit I removed. I would very much like to see it removed as WP: OR, but I do not wish to waste my time in multiple reverts. --Dannyno (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoted material not in quote marks

This article includes a huge amount of material which is taken directly - quoted - from cited sources without appearing in quote marks. I think this is dreadful writing, as well as borderline plagiarism. My attempts to clean this up have been reverted. Rather than set off an edit war, I ask editors to give their views of this practice of pretending that the article contains original writing when in fact it is cobbled together from paragraphs from cited sources but without quote marks. --Dannyno (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To emphasise, the Wikipedia manual of style makes it clear that quotes must be properly attributed in the text where appropriate, and must always be set apart from surrounding text with quote marks. See Wikipedia:INTEXT#In-text_attribution, Wikipedia:PLAGFORM#Forms_of_plagiarism_on_Wikipedia. --Dannyno (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution. --Dannyno (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Dannyno, the material in question was not a direct quote but rather, was a précis. As such, it is not necessary to apply quotation marks around the material in question. The reason we have the original quotes in the references is because this is a contentious article and we want to ensure that the material within the article is properly verifiable. I hope this helps. Thanks for your constructive edits and your efforts to improve the article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of this article is quoted directly. Can't remember now whether the original bit about Moldova was quoted or summarised. Either way, an intext attribution is required, as is clear from wikipedia policy and style guidelines as cited above. Attribution is required, even if the information is properly cited. Suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant guidance and policy. Much work is needed on this page before it is brought into line. --Dannyno (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you do not remember, you can check for yourself. Nevertheless, I accepted your edit, although I reinstated the original quote in the reference to ensure that the quote was verifiable. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I think it is redundant (and also, frankly, confusing when you're trying to edit the page!) to repeat quotes in the notes. But I understand the reason for doing it and I don't mind a great deal. --Dannyno (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, User:Dannyno :) Cheers, Anupam^Talk 07:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article.

The article begins:

Militant atheism, also referred to as atheist fundamentalism,[1][2] is a term which refers to ...

If this article were titled "atheist fundamentalism", would it include all the material on State atheism? If no, then why is it being used as a synonym in the lede? If yes, then wouldn't arguments that this is a "well sourced article about a term" justify writing another entire article with the same exact content under that name? Just because sources can be found that a term is used does not mean that there should be an article on that term when the content is simply a repetition of other articles. Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article. This article is nothing but a coatrack for including every imaginable complaint about atheism by anyone who has ever used the term "militant atheism" in their criticism.--JimWae (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Well put - that's exactly the problem. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I note my attempt to remove the reference to "atheist fundamentalism", on the grounds of WP:UNDUE as well as the fact that one of the citations was irrelevant, was reverted. --Dannyno (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:JimWae, once again, militant atheism is defined as the "ideology of hostility towards religion." The supporting academic journal defines term "atheist fundamentalism" as "hostility to religion." It is for this reason that the synonym has been given in the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That has to be WP:UNDUE, shading into WP:SYNTH --Dannyno (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In no way are either of the policies being violated. The information in the introduction is supported by reliable sources; both terms refer to the "hostility towards religion." Moreover, the second reference indicates their popular usage as synonyms, despite the fact that the author personally disagrees with it. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Misuse of individual reliable sources can still be WP:UNDUE if too much weight is given to insignificant aspects, such as an individual author's equation of the pejoratives "militant atheist" and "atheist fundamentalist". First article cited does not equate the terms anyway. The second has nothing to say about whether the terms are in "popular usage" or not, and is therefore also miscited. --Dannyno (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the reference? The author acknowledges the usage of the terms although he disagrees with them. The first reference for "atheist fundamentalism" also provides the same definition as "hostility to religion," which is what is stated in the article. I have no problem with the current usage in the introduction. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the reference. It has nothing to say about "popular usage" at all. If you have a reliable source which includes citable information about "popular usage", by all means use it. But this is not it. To place such weight on the first reference remains WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, and probably also WP:OR, since you are making a link which is not made in the article itself. It is surely not encyclopedically significant that one single author in one single paper equated fundamentalism and militancy. --Dannyno (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I now also want to dispute the definition of "ideology of hostility". Baggini defines what he calls "militant atheism" as "hostility", but not as an ideology (is hatred an ideology?), and Zuckerman refers to marxist-leninist ideology but not to any emotional reaction. Thus to define "militant atheism" as "ideology of hostility" is definitely WP: SYNTH, WP:OR. In fact the definition is not found in the cited sources. --Dannyno (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There are different ways of being "hostile" - some include murder, some are just self-defense. This article makes no attempt to distinguish "New Atheism" from "State atheism", indeed it does all it can to lump them together. An article on killing that did not distinguish murder from self-defense would also be a sham. --JimWae (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"The article does distinguish between the militant atheism of atheist states and militant atheism as being applied pejoratively to leaders of the New Atheism movement. Simply read the introduction, in which the following sentence is given:

“ More recently the terms militant atheist and atheist fundamentalist, have been used, frequently pejoratively to describe leaders of the New Atheism movement. ”

This is discussed further in the New Atheism section of the article. If you do not feel the distinction is good enough, however, why not propose a more clear way of distinguishing its modern usage? Furthermore, one editor, in the RfC, suggested amalgamating the "New Atheism" section into the "Criticism" section. This is an option that I do not object to discussing or exploring further. Perhaps you might reply to his/her comment as well? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I take the view that "militant atheism" shouldn't be a page, since it is not a concept, merely a label. However, since it exists I guess I want to make the best of it, and so I have long felt that a clearer distinction needs making between pejorative (sometimes proud) uses of the term and its more concrete historical use as a label for anti-religious groups in the USSR. I would encourage that work to be done, but I don't have the energy in this heat to do it myself. --Dannyno (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the article say New Atheism is any different from State atheism? All the lede does is LINK them by saying that some people frequently use the term pejoratively to describe leaders of New Atheism. Then the body talks extensively about State atheism and way near the end finally returns to "current usage" to talk about New Atheism as a type of militant atheism, giving example after example without suggesting it is a pejorative usage. By the time we get to the criticism section we find first a criticism that would be directed at all atheists who stood up for their rights, not just supposedly "militant". In the Kurtz criticism, we finally have one sentence about Soviet state atheism, but not before a criticism of some unspecified "militants". Then finally there is one criticism of the use of the term - but we need to read between the lines to see it is not about applying it to the Soviets. Nowhere is there a presentation of why anyone not in control of the political & military power of a state would become a defender of atheism. Nowhere is there mention about "militant atheists" who do believe in freedom of religion. The way to fix this article is not to tinker with it, but to deal with the (at least) 2 different topics in separate articles (which already exist). --JimWae (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Split article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the split proposal was no consensus. Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This article is 3 to 5 separate articles, though one cannot tell that from the lede. There is Soviet Atheism or Atheism in Communist States, Atheism in the French Revolution, Atheism in China, and New atheism. The article is about a term, not a single concept. Just because the way Atheism has been applied by various states *might* have had the same term (militant atheism) applied to it does not mean that New Atheism is in the same tradition. The paintbrush is too broad and the WP:COATRACK has too many storeys. WP:NOTDICT also applies.--JimWae (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a good idea. For one, many of the articles you proposed already exist. For example, there are articles on Marxist–Leninist atheism and Religion in China, Religion in the Soviet Union. Not all atheism in Communist States, however, is necessarily militant, a term which is well defined. Moreover, the introduction of this article distinguished between the militant atheism prevalent under Marxist–Leninism and its usage as a pejorative term towards members of the New Atheism movement. For this reason, the information is grouped under separate section headings. I would ask if you please remove the NPOV tag from the article and discuss the issue here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

State atheism and new atheism are distinguishable concepts. We do not have a single article for Bear and Bear (film). There is no reason to lump the 2 articles together just because some people have sometimes used the same term for each. The content of this article should be moved to the pages that exist & this become a disambiguation page--JimWae (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the article on New Atheism covers much more than is presented here. The only information on that topic presented here is how it relates to militant atheism. Articles on Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, Christian terrorism, and Islamic terrorism do not cease to exist and neither should this article. Those terms have different uses throughout history but the general article is not simply deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, all of the information presented in this article is well referenced by reliable sources; removing this article for the reasons you suggest is addressed in WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything in this article can be covered by 2 articles State atheism and New atheism. There is no reason to have the same material covered extensively in various articles, except to suggest cross-contamination because the same term has sometimes been attached to both. "Militant atheism" was not the name of the Soviet Policy (even if there have been later communist newspapers/pamphlets that translate to that). Militant atheism is just a nickname for the New Atheism - often meant pejoratively. There is nothing in the lede that mentions China or France. There is nothing in the lede, nor in the entire article, to distinguish New Atheism from Soviet state atheism. The first part of this article focuses primarily on state atheism. The second part, and ALL the criticism, is about New Atheism. As you say, "the article on New Atheism covers much more than is presented here", then what is presented on that topic here will easily fit in that article.--JimWae (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism does not equal state atheism as you have suggested; militant atheism can be the policy of atheist states however, as the references in the article suggest. For example, the League of Militant Atheists and its militant atheist policies were abolished, despite the fact that the USSR remained an atheist state. Similarly, state church does not equal Christian fundamentalism and Islamic state does not equal Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, your claims are unsubstantiated by references. You suggest that "Militant atheism was not the name of the Soviet Policy even if there have been later communist newspapers/pamphlets that translate to that." This is where you breach WP:V. Wikipedia's job is to simply report what reliable sources state, which has been done. If you read the introduction once again, you will find that it distinguishes between its usage as relevant to Marxism-Leninism and the "more recent" usage. There is more to New Atheism than its relation to militant atheism and this article does not describe that fully. In the same fashion, there is more to Religion in the Soviet Union than is described in this article. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Militant atheism as a state policy is not the same concept as militant atheism as it is nicknamed regarding New Atheism. They are diff concepts with different traditions -- and thus different articles. WP:NOTDICT says articles are not about terms but about concepts. Disambiguation pages are about terms.
• 2. IF there were a policy called Militant Atheism, then that MIGHT justify a separate article by that name - but would NOT justify the extensive treatment & criticism of New Atheism in such an article
• 3. Your arguments that there is more in the other articles further support splitting this article, they are not reasons for preserving this as an article.--JimWae (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, militant atheism refers to the "ideology of hostility towards religion" as the article states in the introduction. It is obvious that such an ideology can manifest itself in different ways. That is why there are different sections in this article that describes the application of such an ideology. If I were you, I would examine the structure of other articles and understand that one article can touch upon a subject while another article can expand upon it. This article on atheist fundamentalism is analogous to other articles such as Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Finally, a policy called "militant atheism" has been established. Every single sentence in this article is buttressed by a scholarly reference which uses the term in reference to an ideology that was manifested in a particular way. It might help to read the quotes from the references in the article. The section on New Atheism, and its relation to Militant Atheism, is not a large one as you suggest but is only one part of the multiple sections on this article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Split article because it creates an association between New Atheism and state atheism that does not exist, except in the minds of some militant critics of atheism. I also agree, currently, that content should be merged into the existing articles on New Atheism and State atheism, because neither usage of the term merits its own article at present. There is more material, however, that is relevant to the current criticisms of New Atheism. For instance the episode involving Greg Epstein and his use of the term "Atheist fundamentalism." Still, I think all of that can be covered in New Atheism. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Split article if that is the only way of stemming the tide of WP:SYNTH that leads to the article becoming a dumping ground for every "atheism is bad" opinion that can be mustered. I still think there is a core concept of "militant atheism" that is worth documenting, but maybe it's mainly a WP:DICDEF thing, and would be better treated under Atheism in general. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and Oppose Split as the concept of "militant atheism" is fully referenced throughout this article. The term does have different uses and they are distinguished in this article. Militant atheism refers to the "ideology of hostility towards religion" as the article states in the introduction. It is obvious that such an ideology can manifest itself in different ways. That is why there are different sections in this article that describes the application of such an ideology. Individuals can describe themselves as "militant atheists" but never as "state atheists." As I mentioned numerous times, there are articles on Christian fundamentalism, Christian terrorism, Christianity and violence, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, and Islam and violence. These articles do not cease to exist because they offer some insight on an academic subject. Furthermore, they do not equate to the separate concepts of state church and Islamic state. The same concept applies here: state atheism does not equal militant atheism and this equation actually amounts to WP:SYNTH. Much of the content at the New Atheism page is not relevant here as this term deals with modern scientists and their defense for atheism, all of which cannot be considered 'militant' unless it is 'hostile' as the definition suggests. Every sentence in this article is supported by an academic source about militant atheism and per WP:V, this topic merits its own article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid argument. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  That guideline addresses unrelated subjects. Articles on fundamentalism, including Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and atheist fundamentalism are all related and the comparison is relevant. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  You are incorrect. The guideline is about any argument that one article should exist because another does. Please read the entire guideline and do not generalize based on the examples you see initially. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  I stand by my post. The guideline you pointed to states that "The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles." As I mentioned above, every sentence here is supported by a reference if not many. The desire to delete this article per WP:CENSOR is not an acceptable one. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have no desire to quibble more over this. My point was correct. You are saying that there are other reasons to keep it. Good for you, but you also invoked "otherstuff" which is not valid. Regarding your other argument you appear to be the only one who believes this isn't a work of synthesis, and that there is enough here to have an entire entry on either of the two different subjects. No one wants to censor anything. We just want to move the information to its proper places. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, Oppose split. The article is well documented, as is the use of the term in reliable sources. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support split, keep content There is no reason to have a separate article about every term, nor to include everything about every near synonym for a term in every article. The content of this article is dealt with extensively elsewhere. This article is primarily about 2 separate things: State atheism & New Atheism. This article says nothing to distinguish them--They are treated as if they are the same thing, and ALL of the criticism is about New Atheism - nothing about State atheism. This is a content fork, resulting in an unbalanced treament. Much of the material about State Atheism in USSR is also presented (repeated again, but also more fully) at Religion in the Soviet Union. Having essentially the same material in 3 or 4 or 5 separate articles makes it difficult to keep all the articles current and well-edited, weakening each of those articles. This article need be only a disambiguation page to help people find the specific topic they seek. State Atheism is roughly 74% of this article (with Soviet atheism roughly 58% of the whole - leaving roughly 16% for other state atheism [with much of this content just recently added yesterday]). New Atheism, at roughly 26%, is given almost twice as much treatment as other state atheism. But the only link between State atheism & New Atheism is that the same term "militant atheism" has been stuck ( pejoratively) on a group of atheists who have no desire to follow in the tradition of Soviet atheism. This article is a coatrack used to display every criticism of atheism imaginable, making any response to criticisms appear to be a defense of Soviet-style state atheism. Militant atheism in New Atheism and Soviet militant atheism are two separate concepts - treating them as one makes the article read like mere propaganda --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Such is your opinion, but given that every example of State Atheism has been accompanied by millions of examples of Militant atheism in action (intentional starvation, gulags, mass murder, and mass graves) I don't see how any reasonable person can argue that the two are really distinct. And militant atheism is both descriptive and neutral. "Atheist Brutality and Butchery" would be a title that would be less neutral, though certainly accurate. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: Presuming that "New Atheism" will result in Soviet-style state atheism is the subtext of treating both in the same article. Your response indicates you think I am advocating that Soviet atheism was not militant atheism, which is a misreading of everything I wrote. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and articles must not violate NPOV--JimWae (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is asking for predictions of the future, just an accurate description of the past. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by User:Frjohnwhiteford. User:Jim Wae has inaccurately assessed the article. If one looks at the criticism section, it is evident that most of the criticism is on the militant atheism of the USSR. An "atheist state" and "militant atheism" are not the same thing. If an individual opines "hostility to religion," that makes him a militant atheist, not a state atheist. In a similar fashion, "Christian fundamentalism" is not equivalent to the term "state church." Moreover, the evolution of the usage of the terminology is mentioned from the start of the article, in the introduction. Furthermore, all of the references in this article discuss militant atheism, not "state atheism." Conflating the two terms amounts to synthesizing information. This article is supported by WP:RS and WP:V and merits its position here on Wikipedia. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we see the main problem in action. "Militant atheism" has WIDELY different meanings and uses, but Anupam keeps using the word as if this Baggini guy were some kind of dictionary-god. "Militant atheism" is critically in need of a disambiguation page and this whole discussion here is a symptom of the ambiguity problem. Obhave (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, oppose split.If the distinction could be better made and the article preserved, a re-formatting of this article would be beneficial to both sides (e.g., dividing criticism of each definition or association into the section on each). This is not to say that the article amounts to a glorified disambiguation page, as it contains its own information on an expression and associated concepts which are widely used and relevant to several groups, and moreover, does so in an encyclopedic fashion, with extensive scholarly sourcing and clarity. The title can be traced to many of these sources as-is, and these are all verifiable and respectable sources. Turnsalso (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. This discussion is descending into the sort of WP:coatrackery that the article itself is liable to suffer from as it attracts editors who see it as a place to dump their truthy comments about "Atheist Brutality and Butchery" etc, defining "militant atheism" however it suits them (e.g. as "intentional starvation, gulags, mass murder, and mass graves" - WTF?), in an effort to convey "The Truth" about their bogeymen. If that is (once again) to be the fate of the article, it should be killed off and its contents put into more suitable places. I commend Anupam for his/her valiant efforts to keep everything grounded in well-sourced references to a clearly defined concept of "militant atheism", but once the vultures arrive to use it as an excuse to bring together material from all over the place for their own anti-atheist anti-soviet ends (and those vultures are starting to circle) the whole thing will end up as a meaningless and bloody mess. The trouble is that in the end it's only a phrase, and it has been used to mean so many different things, that there is no core concept on which to base an article, and Wikipedia is not a compendium of words or phrases. With some regret, I conclude that the article should be disposed of. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Snalwibma, thank you for your kind commendation. Indeed, I, like yourself also do not support individuals using this article for their own ends or to disseminate propaganda against atheists, most of whom abhor militant atheist ideology. I, like you, also recognize that this like many other Wikipedia articles, may attract that attention. However, as you stated, I have made "valiant efforts to keep everything grounded in well-sourced references to a clearly defined concept of 'militant atheism'." This is the crux of the issue. The article is verifiable because each sentence in it is referenced by one, if not several reliable sources. The fact that this is a contentious topic does not warrant its deletion. Rather, it calls for individuals who wish to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS to watch the article and ensure that additions to it are referenced by reliable sources that discuss the topic of militant atheism. I hope you will understand my point! :) With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the article merely documents the different ways in which the word "militant atheism" has been used. Militant atheism is not a standalone concept or ideology with its own literature, it's just a label for (anti-religious) activism of various kinds. Other than that there is no non-WP:SYNTH unity here. Now the militant atheism movement sponsored by the scientific-atheism promoting state atheist regime of the USSR (does that help situation the different terms?) is worth an article, but the use of "militant atheism" by or about the "new atheists" probably just belongs in the article about new atheism. Could be briefly noted here, I guess. It's not otherwise encyclopedic. --Dannyno (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The topic of this article is covered by multiple reliable sources, therefore is notable and deserving of it's own article, and should not be split. Now, if you feel that a source is deficient then take it to RSN. Until then, this article passes WP:N. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, Oppose split. This is about an ugly thing that should be documented. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's precisely the problem. It's "an ugly thing", and the implication is that the article should be kept in order to demonstrate the ugliness - and so we move from recording and documenting to persuading, and the encyclopaedia becomes a soapbox and this article a coatrack. That is absolutely NOT what Wikipedia is for. This is not a place to rail against the ugly things of the world, especially when there is no clear agreement on what exactly that ugly thing is. As the article expands to include all sorts of disparate topics, loosely connected by the fact that they relate somehow to atheism and someone, somewhere, once used the adjective "militant" to descibe them, "militant atheism" stops being an objectively verifiable concept and becomes a value judgement - by commentators in the literature, and also, more disturbingly, by Wikipedia editors. This is a misuse of the Wikipedia project. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not keep something from being posted because it is controversial material(AKA an ugly thing). Wikipedia:Controversial articles. And the sources that use the term militant comply with WP:RS. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between controversial articles and articles created just to "protest against ugliness". I was just looking at the section on the soviet bloc, to see if I could do anything with it. The trouble is, most of what appears there, or could appear there, already appears, or could appear, in about a dozen articles that already exist. The Soviet anti-religious repression must be written about, but must it be written about in a dozen different articles that are really about the same thing? --Dannyno (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And then there is a term used by a variety of encyclopedia's to describe people's outlook on life and I have posted that such legitimate and verifiable sources use the term militant atheist. You can try all you like to twist people's words here and it will not erase that. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is not about an ugly thing. There is nothing inherently ugly about either strong atheism or the view that religions are usually harmful (which comprise the definition on which this entire article is based). Only when violence is applied does an ugly thing happen, and there are articles that specifically cover when violence has been applied to forcibly protect a local populace from the alleged harm of certain religions. Obhave (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Split article. Verbal criticism of religion and systematic violence are NOT the same thing. The term "militant atheist" refers to VERY different things in today's world, and a disambiguation page is critically needed here. See also this political cartoon for an illustration of the insane double standard that atheists have to deal with nowadays. Obhave (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Split article. Honestly, this needs to be split and there should actually be written an article about religous fundamentalists cooking up things like "militant atheist", a concept that has nothing to with any reality, in an attempt to destroy that which eventually will rid most of the world of the poison of religion - The Truth. It is truly a desperate attempt, because already religion is slipping fast in much of the world. It is IN ITSELF a part of the ongoing religious terrorism. So: Split it and label the articles about how Communists outlawed religion not because of truth but because of the class struggle between the rich (who benefitted from the opiate of the masses) and the poor (who used religion as an opiate). It didn't have anything to do with scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runirokk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Why isn't there a tag on the article itself pointing out the ongoing vote for a split? Obhave (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see one (but I could be wrong) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the relevant tags myself recently. Obhave (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, Oppose split. Deletion shouldn't even be on the table-- this article is too well documented, and militant atheism is a legitimate concept that exists in history-- getting rid of this entry would be suppressing facts. Argue about the details, sure, but keep the article. There are several reasons this article should remain a standalone entry-- first, the article being considered for merger (antitheism) isn't really the same concept, even as an issue of degree. An antitheist opposes theism-- an atheist simply doesn't believe in a god or gods. One is not a subset of the other. So all militant atheists might not technically be antitheists (at least according to the actual meanings of the words.) Plus,the term antitheism doesn't really show up in popular usage. And even if militant atheism were a subset of antitheism (it isn't) you'd have a situation where the sub-article swallowed the main article. No, this article should be kept in its current form. Jacob800 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Antitheism is often used interchangeably with antireligion (the belief that some or all religions are harmful). At any rate, we sorely need some disambiguation here (see: the entire rest of the discussion area). Obhave (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One problem detailed above is that the article is not about "a legitimate concept". It's about a term, which is used to describe a number of varied concepts. Please see WP:NOTDICT, as it deals precisely with this issue. We haven't yet decided where the content should go, so your primary opposition to using Antitheism is irrelevant. If you still oppose splitting, could you please address the issues which have been raised? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The article establishes a definition for militant atheism, then proceeds to explore how that has manifested historically. That the term has been used pejoratively is noted in the article, and I think people who read the article will see the distinction between pejorative usage and more neutral usage. Splitting this article into 3 to 5 separate articles linked from a single disambiguation page would actually add ambiguity. State atheism is a possible outcome of militant atheism, and requiring readers to go to individual articles about state-sponsored atheism and work backwards to make the connection seems almost like censorship to me. (Constantine and state churches, for example, haven't been removed from the main Christianity article.) If the main point of contention here is the connection made between militant atheism and new atheism, I submit that the best way to address that would be to add contrary evidence to the article that is well documented. That way the reader can make up his or her own mind. Making a disambiguation page and removing the connection entirely is an editorial decision that would essentially shut down discussion and advocate a particular point of view by default. Jacob800 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, we haven't necessarily decided on using a disambig page. We're simply discussing splitting the article in some way. As it is now, the article can either 1) establish multiple definitions for "militant atheism" which are conceptually different, or 2) establish a single definition under which some of our current content doesn't apply. If (1), see WP:NOTDICT; the article should be split. If (2), the different content should be split, and the rest can stay. No one is censoring anything, and I would ask that you assume good faith of the editors here. If you still oppose splitting, can you please address those issues, which are the ones being discussed? Namely, if the article is to stay, we need to furnish a single definition under which all the current content is applicable. Can you do that, and source it? Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Split article. Concur with OP, Runirokk, Obhave, et al. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Split. The arguments to split are compelling, and the majority of the opposition is either "ilikeit", "it's true", or avoids addressing the concerns raised. Most notably, those concerns are: 1) The article deals with a term rather than a concept, thus violating WP:NODICT. 2) The term we have defined via sources covers a specific area (period in time or geographic location) under which a substantive portion of the article doesn't apply, therefore requiring a split. 3) For those and other reasons, the article appears to be a coatrack. I agree with all those 3 points, and I'll point out that consensus is not a vote. Therefore, opposing votes which fail to address these concerns do not hold any weight. I'm happy to change my view if someone can present an opposing viewpoint, but as of yet I have not seen one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, Oppose Split. Using Wikipedia for year, just created a new account. I saw this discussion today and thought I might throw my two cents in. I concur mostly with Jacob800. The facts of the article can be debated, but it should stay one article. I would also be concerned with sourcing if the article were split. I.e. it wouldn't be a clean split. Someone would need to retool the sources since they refer specifically to "militant atheism." Troisprenoms (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response to Jacob above, since your opposition is simply a restatement of his. If you still oppose splitting, could you please comment on the actual issues being raised? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A great deal of the sources simply refer to a slur applied to people that dare to voice an unpopular opinion. "Militant atheist", "militant feminist" and "militant homosexual" all have tens of thousands of hits on Google. Obhave (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture. And like Grisworld says above your point is WP:OTHERCRAP. As there are atheists sources whom use the term and make no such connotation. ::::And plenty of Encyclopedia's as well.[11], [12], [13],[14], [15], [16], [17], [18],

Here's from another Encyclopedia's article.

"Militant atheism is now less common than agnosticism, which assumes a smaller burden of proof. Even in Marxist eastern Europe there is some tendency to qualify dogmatic atheism in the direction of an inquiring agnosticism". ...[19] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, Oppose Split. The article appears to be well referenced and accurate, a split does not seem necessary.ClassArm (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is well sourced or accurate is not on the table. Can you please read and address the issues being raised? Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

At User Mann jess..

Are you attempting to frustrate contributors here? And run them off from contributing to the project? How is it that you can make the definitive statement.

"One problem detailed above is that the article is not about "a legitimate concept".

And then respond in your last comment with..

"Whether it is well sourced or accurate is not on the table. Can you please read and address the issues being raised? Thank you."

Can you not see that you are engaging in a non sequitur fallacy? That legitimate sources impart legitimacy to the term when they use it. You can't understand that? How is it that if policy on Wikipedia states that something is valid as a source and can be used to give validity to an article here in Wiki now no longer can do that because now you have decided that Wiki policy is about valid sources and that does not mean the same to people as legitimate ones? Do you not see that you are making your own policies and acting in a way that you have no authority to act in. And in a way that appears to make apologies for a group of people whom do very bad things? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@LM Your comments are out of line. I'd appreciate it if you heeded WP:AGF when addressing the civil comments of others. Asking that editors who vote in this issue read and respond to the actual issue being discussed is reasonable, and in no way an "apology" for mass murder, and your insinuation that it is is not constructive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My comments are dead on. Your not assuming good faith by telling people they have not read your comments and or the articles you keep linking too. You are telling editors here to not WP:Bold. Try first to assume good faith your self and show it in your comments to other editors not just me here before telling me my comments are out of line. If this ideology or anti-ideology got people killed and or was the basis for people to harm or hurt other people and cause human suffering then that is intrinsic to the article. This talkpage is about the article. It is also about the complete and utter hypocrisy of atheism which claims victimization while at the same time having this idealogy in its own camp. All of this is still directly relating to the article so it belongs here on the talkpage for the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how this comment.

"that appears to make apologies for a group of people whom do very bad things"

Is uncivil and not assuming good faith? I mean do you not see this potential? How dare I point that out?

Is this not something editors should consider in light of what the League of Militant Atheists actually did in the real world as historical fact? Should this not be pointed out to people? Tell me how that is not relative to this article? Please. Also as if this was unique to Russia? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion was started on 6/26. Let me repeat that: June twenty-sixth. That was 2 weeks ago. The close is long overdue. Got a problem with it? Take it to AfD. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a deletion proposal, but a disambiguation proposal. Why are you pointing me to AfD, then? Furthermore, this is an ongoing dispute. What are we to do, make a new topic? Obhave (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, close this discussion if you wish. But there'll be a new one pretty soon, which addresses the new sources that I'm currently putting in the lede. Obhave (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reponse to Mann Jess

Jess wrote
One problem detailed above is that the article is not about "a legitimate concept".

LoveMonkey's response
Atheist Julian Baggini says that it is.[20] And then uses it. As does Phil Zuckerman [21] [22] Do you have scholars or at least a scholar or source for your statement. Since the term has validity at best in order to remain WP:NPOV we can add it to the article as this criticism as of yet from you has no sources and is your opinion. Wikipedia is not your opinion it is about valid sources. 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jess wrote
It's about a term, which is used to describe a number of varied concepts. Please see WP:NOTDICT, as it deals precisely with this issue.

LoveMonkey's response
That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Why can people whom read Zuckerman off of the Huffington Report see what he specifically says about term and then not see it reflected in this article in Wiki? [23] PLEASE Post specifically here what in the article WP:NOTDICT you are talking about. As on one hand the side you are on is saying that there is no dictionary term "militant atheism" and that somehow Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can't have an encyclopedia article (which other encyclopedia have) because you can't find a dictionary article for the term. As if all of the sudden we have to start deleting articles like von Neumann paradox because people can't find that in a dictionary. [24],[25] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please don't copy/paste my comments (and signature) somewhere I didn't put them. I did not comment in this section up to now, and putting my sig here indicates otherwise. Further, these comments should have been posted in response to my words above, not set aside in its own section. That aside, you're missing the point. Please read WP:NOTDICT and then my words again. As I said, the article is about "a term which applies to a number of varied concepts", not one concept in particular. That is a violation of NOTDICT, as this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and as such we write about 'concepts', not 'terms'. If you're not going to read the policy pages that I'm linking, then I don't know how we can have a productive discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want people to response to your comments for clarity please post a better way to do that. As you are not listening to people and their points. So out of frustration for your behavior what are people supposed to do Jess? As such this is the only way I can see where I could directly address your comments. Second there is nothing in WP:NOTDICT that says that this article is illegitimate or invalid. I have read the article (please assume good faith your comments to other editors here do not reflect that) and there is nothing in WP:NOTDICT that states that a term with valid sources like other encyclopedias can not be here on Wikipedia.

As a matter of fact in the lead of that article it restates what I believe is the whole basis of this article..

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.

As such your point is not valid as militant atheism is not being treated here as a word nor is the article about the Etymology of the concept, militant atheism. Here is ANOTHER valid source covering militant atheism's attack Islam, note this source states that militant atheism is an anti-idealogy. AND Ideologies and anti-ideologies are valid concepts to create an encyclopedia article around as one can see with such concepts as democracy for example. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this article addresses multiple distinct concepts which are arbitrarily linked by a term (and thus, is a violation of WP:NOTDICT) has been clearly expounded by multiple editors above, and as such, I'm done rehashing that conversation with you. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess, hello! Please acknowledge the fact that User:LoveMonkey is trying to address the specific concerns you have with the article using reliable sources, etc., as you have requested in the closed discussion above. In fact, I will soon incorporate some of these sources into the article. Rather than trying to end the discussion with him, please address his concerns. From my perspective, it seems that he is trying to engage is dialogue with you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's trying to engage me, then accusing me of "apologizing for mass murderers" is a poor way of doing it. If he has sources, he's welcome to present them without calling me a sociopath in the process. Further, until he's able to read and respond to my concerns, I have more productive things to do with my time than repeat myself endlessly. Sorry, but I'm here to be productive, not to debate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Again people engage Jess on the talkpage, Jess rather than address their responses or concerns instead posts evasive dialog like the above, claiming they don't themselves have to address others concerns (as Jess appears to be attempting to marginalize those concerns) but wants their concerns addressed. Jess specifically earlier in talkpage discussion has made the declaration that people whom don't address his concerns in a way that he likes will have their responses and or stances on this article discarded, disregarded. Those kinds of comments and his off hand responses to comments I made in general, not just specifically to Jess, show a very clear lack of co-operation on Jess' part.

As Jess is pretty much saying he does not have time to do what Jess is asking other contributors here to do. As for his comments about my concerns about sociopath whatever, all he has to do is say that he has empathy for the victims of militant atheism and note that very simple fact, as of yet none of the editors opposing the article have done this. Which I think any person should find troubling and I also find troubling as well as a reoccurring component of this specific type of discussion. Why should people whom post valid sources stating clearly there were people MURDERED by followers of this concept, not to point out this concern? Jess is now not responding to the substance of my comments Jess is instead ignoring that and complaining about the style and how my responses have been presented and this is wasting time and engaging in logical fallacies. As the style over substance fallacy is not welcome and not productive to the Wikipedia project no valid point for anything on the project is based on a fallacy.

As "arbitrarily linked" is Jess' opinion and it is Jess' opinion about valid sources and how those valid sources use militant atheism. As Jess needs to post as many valid sources as he can find to validate that the other valid sources use the concept of militant atheism as a bunch of arbitrarily linked groups and events in history. You need to source as that is what has been said by the opposing editors on this article for as long as I have been contributing to this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. It is not required or appropriate for editors to express opinions (or empathy) about the article topic. Please constrain your comments to specific suggestions for article improvement. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede - TWO claims sufficient for State atheism?

The lede says:

Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."[3] Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,[5][6] and significant in the French Revolution,[7] Soviet Union,[8][9] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.[10]

Are we really supposed to swallow that just those two claims leads to state atheism? Is that what the source (Baggini) says? (no)--JimWae (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed out here, or somewhere, before that it is dangerous to rely on Baggini, as he is just an idiosyndratic single source. He's also not coherent, in my view, but even leaving my view aside relying on him is WP:UNDUE. Who else follows his definition? --Dannyno (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ideology of hostility"?

The lede is currently seriously skewed. I have just pointed out, having realised what is going on, that the definition used here of "ideology of hostility" is WP:OR WP:SYNTH of two sources, one of which refers to hatred but not ideology, and the other of which refers to ideology but not hatred. Nor am I sure that the concept of an "ideology of hatred" makes any sense in the first place. I don't think this is acceptable. --Dannyno (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, its worse SYNTH than that. "Ideology" (in the source) is used about religion not atheism.--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right! --Dannyno (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Atheist fundamentalism"?

We need to hammer this out properly as changes are being repeatedly reverted. Reference to this phrase has been justified on the grounds that a single source has defined it as "hostility to religion", and that therefore it is synonymous with "militant atheism", which is also defined as "hostility to religion". But "militant atheism" is not actually here defined as "hostility to religion" at all (however inadequate the definition actually is), and nor is it so defined by any of the sources (dubiously) relied upon for that definition. How, then, can "atheist fundamentalism"'s inclusion in the lede be justified? See: WP:UNDUE, WP: SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP: OR --Dannyno (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither source defines "fundamentalist atheism". The *Watson* source is a clearly hostile review of The God Delusion and it does not define "fundamentalist atheism" as "hostility to religion", it just says hostility to religion "marks him [Dawkins] out as "a fundamentalist atheist"". The other source just says both terms have been applied. This is what happens when articles are about what terms REFER TO. Even frogs are sometimes referred to as reptiles (instead of amphibians) --JimWae (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice its a formulation used in Conservapedia [26]. --Dannyno (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution

The article claims that atheism was significant in the French Revolution, citing McGrath in support. But McGrath does not actually say that atheism was significant in the French Revolution generally, though it was significant to some of the participants. He actually characterises the view that atheism was a "driving force" as a "crude pastiche" (p.45). I think we need to revisit this. --Dannyno (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sequence in lede

Bagginni is clearly NOT talking about Soviet style atheism. Putting State atheism as the 2nd paragraph interrupts the flow of ideas. MORE THAN 2 claims need to be made to advocate state atheism--JimWae (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Baggini is clearly talking about the militant atheism of the Soviet Union. This is evident from Baggini's statement that it is "characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief." I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Read Baggini - Soviet atheism is not discussed in relationship to militant atheism. It takes more than those 2 claims to get to state atheism--JimWae (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by your statement. The sequence is fine as it is. It makes no sense to talk about a movement popular in the 2000s before talking about the 1920s. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

JimWae is correct. At that point in Baggini's book, he is not talking about the Soviet Union. He discusses the militant atheism of the USSR earlier in the book. He says the USSR is an example of "what can happen when atheism becomes too militant" (p.87). When he gets to the point that is being quoted here, he is no longer talking about that historical example, and it is unsafe to assume that his definition at that point is simultaneously a definition of State Atheism in the USSR. --Dannyno (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not true to the source to suggest that Baggini was talking about Soviet atheism when he describes militant atheism as needing 2 steps, nor is it true to the source to suggest that Soviet style militant atheism or the atheism of Marxism-Leninism has been identified already. This is where POV & not having any idea these are separate things creeps in & warrants breaking up the article--JimWae (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Baggini says "It is one thing to disagree with religion and quite another to think that the best way to counter it is by oppression and making atheism the official state credo".p131 That clearly goes at least 2 steps beyond his 2 claims--JimWae (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to see the problem here. Baggini simply provides a definition of militant atheism. Zuckerman's source does the same and applies it to "Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks." In the sentences afterwards, we describe where this ideology has taken root. The first sentence of the article on oranges define what an "orange" is. The second sentence does not need to define the word orange again, but provides a fact on it, stating that it is the most "commonly grown tree fruit in the world." Moreover, it is not your responsibility to evaluate Baggini's book; we are to simply report what reliable sources state. Moreover, you are the one who wants to conflate state atheism with militant atheism. I do not and therefore, that onus is on you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that we merely have different authors using "militant atheism" to describe various forms of anti-religious atheism, ranging from people who write books and do talks, to political movements who repressed religious organisations. The article is merely a compilation of examples of the ways in which the phrase has been used. There is no consensus in any cited source that says that all of these examples are examples of the same "ideology". Thus we are in danger of contravening WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Much of what is here merely repeats what is in articles on new atheism, marxist-leninist atheism, religion in the soviet union, state atheism, religious persecution, communism and religion, antireligion, anti-clericalism, soviet anti-religious legislation, Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union, Persecution_of_Christians_in_Warsaw_Pact_countries and League_of_the_Militant_Godless among others. Surely this needs consolidating. --Dannyno (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it so much as being in danger of contravening WP:SYNTH and WP:OR but rather as defining contravening WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This bit... The Tea Party's unifying bogeyman: the socialist by Paul Froese (his book is referenced in the article) sums things up nicely. I think. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be merged with antitheism/antireligion

This article should be merged with the article on antitheism. Antitheism (the view that some or all religions are harmful to humans) can indeed motivate a person to violence if they get desperate enough, or if they don't mind accomplishing a good end (in their view) with evil means. Mere atheism (not seeing a good reason to believe in the existence of gods), however, cannot motivate anyone to do violence. Even strong atheism (the outright conviction that there are no gods) cannot motivate anyone to do violence... unless they simultaneously held the (clinically insane) opinion that correcting a bit of misinformation is a cause worth killing for.

Also, the article is (to say the least) inconsistent in it's use of the word "militant". It is used both to mean acts of violence as well as frank discussion among intellectuals. This is unacceptable.

EDIT: Changed the title from "antitheism" to "antitheism/antireligion".

Obhave (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources which equate the two terms? Right now we have a prevalence of sources which seem to use it in a different context than antitheism, and vice-versa. Ultimately, we need to go by what the sources say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mann jess. Every single source used in this article makes explicit reference to militant atheism. Even if User:Obhave did have sources that equated the two terms, applying them here would constitute a synthesis of information. As User:Lionelt mentioned above, the article passes WP:N and moreover, the information meets WP:RS and WP:V. On a side note, the term "antitheism" is not sufficient to encompass the content presented here anyways, since many of the religions and philosophies that were attacked, including Buddhism and Confucianism, were not theistic religions. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The two topics seem dissimilar enough to rate seperate articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Every single source in this article does make explicit reference to "militant atheism". But they aren't using it consistently, as if "militant atheism" were a concept in itself, instead of a contested descriptor-word modifying a contested philosophy, with both "militant" and "atheism" having many different meanings and connotations. Only part of this article could be merged into antitheism, and I'm not certain the rest merits its own article. Quigley (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you moved the anti-theist bits to antitheism and the new atheist bits to new atheism and the state atheist bits to state atheism you wouldn't have much of an article left. That's kind of what leads me to think this is a POV fork synth/coatrack. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninformed. Might make sense if Chris Hitchens didn't voice militant atheist propaganda about the Russian Orthodox church even in light of what was done to the church..

"One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it."[27] LoveMonkey (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, antitheism may not be the most suitable of terms... but an important point still stands. How can we justify the equation of brutal violence with free academic discussion? This political cartoon demonstrates nicely the injustice and the double standard(s) that atheists have to deal with nowadays. But what can we do about it then? Since this page is supposed to be about the term "militant atheist" (rather than pointing out "real world examples" of militant atheists) perhaps the article should draw attention to the inconsistent use of the word "militant" lately? Obhave (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "militant antireligion" or "militant opposition to religion" then? Like I said earlier, no remotely sane person would apply violence to his/her opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in deities. However, the Soviet Union is a prime example of applying violence to the opinion that some or all religions are harmful. Ergo, the Soviet Union should be stated as an example of militant antireligion, rather than militant atheism. Obhave (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Militant Atheists is what they officially called themselves in Russia, it was the title of their organization that they committed mass murder and mass oppression for. I have already pointed out that people have played with the way the Society of the Godless as a official name is being translated into English from Russian. As they in literal translation are supposed to be called The Union of the Militant Atheist. Belligerent means drunk. It appears that its OK for atheists to make statements like 911 is an example of why religion is wrong [28] but the mass murder against religious people committed by militant atheists calling themselves militant atheists is not acceptable and what they actually did is being defended and covered up by other atheists here is somehow a good thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Russian is variously translated in the literature. Paul Froese has it as "League of Militant Atheists", William Husband and Daniel Peris have it as "League of Militant Godless". The issue here is not whether or not the repression of religious people happened, but whether that fact should be discussed in umpteen different articles about the same thing. --Dannyno (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvement

I thought it would be useful to illustrate one problem with this article, i.e. the extent to which it merely repeats what a million other articles say. Here is a list of all the articles I can find which are about, or are relevant to, this same subject:

• Treatment of Christians in the Soviet Union
• Treatment of Christians in Communist Bloc countries
• State atheism
• Religion in the Soviet Union
• Soviet anti-religious legislation
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1917–1921)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1990)
• Bezbozhnik
• Society of the Godless
• Terrible Triangle
• Holy See-Soviet Union relations
• Antireligion

I'd suggest that most of the material here about "militant atheism" in the USSR belongs either on the page about the Society of the Godless, or on a page about religion/religious persecution in the USSR. --Dannyno (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add criticism of atheism to that list of articles. Obhave (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO this POV fork article has real issues and is in need of a good pruning. Substantial content here is repeated from other articles that are more well-defined in scope. The scope of the definition of "militancy" is so broad as to be able to link in any subject from the Four Olds to Michael Newdow. Synth/coatrack articles work by grouping a large number of well-sourced factoids together in order to lead the reader towards a POV. Read the article for Militant itself. Militancy occurs across the political spectrum and can mean anything from "protester" to "terrorist". What is the implication of connecting Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens with Soviet anti-religious and French anti-clerical persecution? I think we should consider limiting the scope of this article in some way, because Soviet Militant Atheism is a much different animal than American Militant Atheism. That this article makes no distinction is the source of its synthesis problem. Content in this article should be scaled back, with appropriate links made to State atheism, New atheism, History of atheism, anti-theism etc. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninformed. Might make sense if Chris Hitchens didn't voice militant atheist propaganda about the Russian Orthodox church even in light of what was done to the church..

"One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it."[29]

Dawkins also.

""Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument"; people who have faith are not "taught to question and think through their beliefs" [30] So much for a probabilistic reality [31]. Remember that sociopaths LACK empathy. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A properly scholarly approach would talk about the role of the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the Czarist state (as Froese's book, "the plot to kill God", and other good sources do). It is possible to imagine how the declaration of a secular state might have been regarded as progressive in 1917, while acknowledging the reality of what happened afterwards and in particular from the 1920s. Hitchens, in "God in not Great", criticises antireligious propaganda in the USSR as "the most banal materialist sort", and "idiocy" (p.245), and also attacks atheist states like Albania as "extreme cults of mediocre human beings" (p.247). He is clear that "there is nothing in modern secular argument that even hints at any ban on religious observance", and states that "the religious impulse... can take even more monstrous forms if it is repressed." (p.247). To avoid tendentious editing, we should be fair to the sources. --Dannyno (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this article does not equate New Atheists and the persecutors of the USSR or Reign-of-Terror France; the fact that the article passes WP:N is strong evidence against that. The quote from Dr. Dawkins especially shows this, specifying his passion as being limited to words only. The article even appears to go out of its way in its effort to say that the titular phrase has been used to criticize, rather than describe, New Atheism, and as pointed out in the previous sentence, makes effort to include defenses against this appellation. Links could be placed in appropriate places, but the article need not necessarily be scaled back. The act of synthesis appears to be on the part of readers looking for cause for offense. Turnsalso (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the New Atheism section approaching any criticism of calling new atheists "militant atheists". That is in the criticism section - a section devoted mostly to criticizing militant atheism in general, making no distinction between repression and argument.--JimWae (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not, then, move or place some such defense against the term's usage in the New Atheism section? Turnsalso (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

At the present time I don't see any chance of obtaining a consensus (or even a majority) to merge/move/split this article. Can we get back to editing now? And btw using the phrase "POV fork" is extremely bad form per WP:POVFORK. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never been accused of having extremely bad form before. I've read the page on content forking, and if someone would point me to the policy I've violated, I'd appreciate it. "Militant" in a poor choice for an article title, because of its imprecision as well as its pejorative meaning. Christianity has both Christian fundamentalism and Christian terrorism. Islam has Islamism and Islamic terrorism. Hinduism has Hindutva and Saffron terror. There's a stub for Jewish fundamentalism and an article for Jewish religious terrorism. Also, there's even an article on Sikh extremism covering religious violence from their nationalists. Before I'm trouted with "other stuff exists", my point should be clear. These other articles have a well-defined scope that this article does not. IMO, this article fails NPOV because its title is so broad it can be used to hang any well-sourced unflattering fact from the biting satire of Christopher Hitchens to the Great Terror of Joseph Stalin. I agree that there no consensus for a delete, so I suggest the following: Discussion of "New Atheism" in this article be moved into the eponymous article, and this article be renamed atheist extremism. This accomplishes two things. One, it moves a discussion of religious intolerance on the part of modern Western atheism to a place where it can be given the appropriate weight. Two, "atheist extremism" can be precisely defined to mean atheist movements that advocate, give material support, or perpetrate violence to achieve their goals, and atheism can be discussed in the Jacobin or Marxist/Leninist contexts. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Obhave (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats allot of opinion and as has already been stated in the interactions here on the article talkpage the sources use the article title. The sources met WP:Notable. Tell, here what Hitchens or Dawkins said that shows them as not being enemies of, say the Russian Orthodox church. Posted here as you state that you are misunderstood where Dawkins or Hitchens fought for say religious rights or liberties. Where they don't actually sound like two backward ignorant narcissistic anti-religious bigots? That preached their ignorance driven by hate. IMO. Regards LoveMonkey (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources "mention" the article title, but how many *define* it? Scholarly books on the League of Militant Godless and USSR state atheism (Froese, Peris, Husband for starters) do not *define* militant atheism. Almost nobody does. --Dannyno (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are valid and they use the term. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, we could retain the "Militant atheism" article but limit it to political advocacy of atheism, and create an atheist extremism article to include atheist terrorism or oppressive atheist governments. In this case the discussion of Dawkins would stay, and the discussion of the Jacobins and Soviets would go to the "extremism" article. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I speak from personal experience when I say that the subject of this article is one that does not respect people's personal freedoms (or their lives) and most definitely works with violence to destroy people whom hold religious convictions. It is completely acceptable to this subject to lie and be amoral (losing ones job is only the tip of the iceberg when contenting with this subject). LoveMonkey (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Liberal Classic, thank you for your comments. The reason that we have an article on this topic is because it passes WP:N: every single sentence in this article is verifiable by a reliable source which makes explicit reference to the concept of militant atheism. Your suggestion to create an article titled "atheist extremism" is contentious because there are few sources that discuss this phenomenon with that explicit term. As one can tell by looking at the reliable sources in the article, it is evident that militant atheism is a very notable locution with much research on the topic. This article originally contained the alternate term "atheist fundamentalism" in the introduction, which I supported, but it was removed by another user. Moreover, at User:Lionelt stated, your proposition was already brought up above, with no new consensus. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam - you say "it is evident that militant atheism is a very notable locution." That's the problem. It is just a locution, a phrase, a couple of words used in many different contexts. There is no core concept that is clearly identified as "militant atheism", and therefore, given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article should go. It is being used as a coatrack, nothing more. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your sources do not "makes explicit reference to the concept of militant atheism" they make use of the words "militant atheism". The Duck with a shovel says it's a coatrack of synthetic design. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Snalwibma, from reading the article, it is evident that the concept of "militant atheism" has been clearly defined. The first source, used in the introduction, defines militant atheism as:

Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.

The second source, also used in the introduction, states that:

militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.

The third source, also used in the introduction, states that:

Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures.

It is evident that the concept of militant atheism is well defined from the plethora of reliable sources that describe this ideology. In the near future, I will buttress the statements with even more references. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, the first source is Julian Baggini's personal definition "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant". I say personal not to disparage Baggini but to point out Baggini cites no references (schollarly or otherwise) and, as such, using his definition in the lede (practically as the lede) is not apropriate. In the second source, Atheism and Secularity: Volume 1 & 2 (A collection of essays edited by Phil Zuckerman), the reference is specific and found in a section entitled "Atheism and secularity in China". It also includes:

"Militant atheism is so radical and left-leaning that it merely lasted 30 years or so (i.e., 1949-1979) and dwindled away with the launch of "economic reforms and open-door policies" at the end of 1978."

The third reference, Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China, is also specific...

...in contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of the anti-revolutionary forces; thus forces may be necessary to control of eliminate religion...However, militant atheism and merciless suppression failed to eradicate religion in Chinese society...Despite repressive policies toward religion and restrictive policies toward academia, religious research has become increasingly autonomous and responsive to the desecularizing reality. By the late 1990s, Marxist dogmatism has evidently given way to scientific principles, which require neutrality and objectivity, thus making it possible to affirm both the positive and the negative functions of religion.

I see Marxist dogmatism and nothing else. I hope this helps. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that some people aren't hearing arguments. I've made an attempt to address the concerns of others. The issue isn't verifiability. The issue is that the scope of this article is poorly bounded, such that it is so broad that it can be used to include any unflattering fact about atheists without regard to context. This is the definition of coat rack article. It's used to "hang" citations, but ultimately fails to be neutral and is actually an attack article. The neutrality issue here is that no distinction is made between moderates and extremists, political advocacy and violent action. Christian fundamentalists would object (and rightly so) to being characterized as terrorists. That's why there are separate articles for fundamental or religious conservatism and Christian terrorism. All other religions and political groups are divided along this line. I realize that "other stuff exists" is not by itself a good argument, but I would like to suggest that there is no compelling reason for treating atheists any differently. French Revolutionary anti-clericalism and Soviet religious persecution are examples of extremism. That's where discussion of Jacobins and Marxist/Leninists belongs; in an article with a title something like Atheist extremism that clearly suggests violent oppression. Discussion of bigotry or intolerance on the part of modern Western atheists belongs in an article with a title something like Atheist religious intolerance. I'm rather surprised the same editor who would suggest Atheist fundamentalism would oppose Atheist extremism. Read the wikipedia entry on Militant. It is so broad it can mean anything from protester to terrorist. Just because a reliable source uses the term "militant" does not necessarily mean the term must be in an article with the word "militant" in the title. The original sources may be talking about very different things, from Michael Newdow's opposition to the "under God" in the Pledge to the Cultural Revolution or Reign of Terror. The policy on verifiability says that sources must support the topic. In sum, I'm making a common sense argument to separate violent extremism from political advocacy. To not differentiate the two makes this an attack article. It fails NPOV, and advances the synthesis that atheism is responsible for the Reign of Terror, the Great Terror, and the Cultural Revolution with no regard to other political or economic contexts. That makes this article more appropriate for Conservapedia, and I suggest it be improved by moving some content to another article where each topic can get the appropriate weight. I'm not married to one article name or the other, so long as we're clear on what kind of militancy we're talking about. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC) In addition to the use of an excessively broad and poorly defined term "militant atheism" in this article, all 16 references in the Further Reading section currently concern Russia and the Soviet Union. I don't normally comment on Wiki pages, and I'm not going to try to edit this one, but I feel it completely fails any NPOV, and does indeed appear to conflate outspoken atheists with mass murderers.Jkhwiki (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Liberal Classic, the title of this page, militant atheism, is acceptable per WP:COMMONNAME as Wikipedia "uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Furthermore, all of the references in this article make explicit use of the term "militant atheism." One cannot create an article with a different subject name and write about it when the sources do not even use that term. However, I would not mind you adding the term "atheist extremism" in the introduction, as you have suggested, if you can find a source that equates it with militant atheism or the definition provided in the introduction. You suggested that the term "militant" is problematic. However, your argument fails per WP:POVTITLE, which states that "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." In other words, the title "militant atheism" is the appropriate name for this article because of its commonality. The fact that the term is broad does not warrant a splitting of the article because its uses can and have been distinguished in this article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Some people aren't hearing arguments..." How dare you. I resent your patronizing and condescending attitude. Liberal Classic we are hearing your arguments. It's just that your arguments are not persuasive. Your arguments are being given due consideration, your points carefully considered, and rejected. What's the matter? Can't believe that someone disagrees with you because your argument is weak? Your arrogance is astounding.

Repeating the same old points ad nauseum isn't persuasive. Making endless proposals repeatedly just isn't working. Creating a wall of text is pointless. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. This discussion has reached the point of insanity.

Anupam has demonstrated with evidence that Militan Atheism is notable by multiple sources. He has shown that the content within is on topic. The disamb discussion is deadlocked 5-5. How much longer are you going to continue this? – Lionel ^(talk) 22:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am feeling a bit frustrated by this conversation. I'll repeat myself again that my problem isn't verifiability of the sources, or the name of the article. I have no problem with the recognizability or naturalness of the term "militant atheism". The issue that I (and others going back in the archives to 2007 at least) is the imprecision of the term that leads to coatrackiness of the article. The sources you linked above range from "intolerant" and "hostile" to the "elimination" of "opiate of the masses". I would disagree that this term is clearly defined. I would like to tighten the definition such that we characterize militancy as extremism. The discussion of Richard Dawkins's attitudes (for example) would then belong in the New Atheism article where it can get the appropriate weight and not run afoul of BLP. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Come back when you have a source for this, ok? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this sample is helpful, but on searching WorldCat, I found 19 sources with "Militant Atheism" in the title. Of these, 12 concerned militant atheism in communism and the Soviet Union (most published in the 1930, with a couple of more recent scholarly articles on the topic), 6 were recent publications that concerned "new atheism", Dawkins etc, and I'd put 1 in the "other" category. A similar search for the topic "militant atheism" gave 95 publications which overwhelmingly grouped into the "soviet atheism" and "new atheism" categories. So the term, as it's been commonly used, seems to to refer to two distinct things: militant atheism in the soviet union and communism, and the the "new atheists" like Dawkins et. al. (where it is used almost invariably in a critical sense). These appear to me to be unconnected, apart from the common use of the word "militant". One possibly relevant source is: Militant Modern Atheism, P KITCHER, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, 28, no. 1, (2011): 1-13 on Dawkins et. al. in which the author specifies modern militant atheism, but makes no mention of the soviet union of communism that I could find.Jkhwiki (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP, Liberal Classic? The article is saying that Dr. Dawkins has been called a militant atheist in sources, not that he self-identifies as one, or even that he should be considered one. The burden of evidence lies on anyone who adds or restores material, and the evidence that Dr. Dawkins has been called a militant atheist is found in sources wherein he is called a militant atheist, for better or worse. Dawkins' own explanation of why he believes this not to be so is included within the same section. This content is hardly biographical in nature, nor is it written in a way to violate WP:RS/OPINION. Jumping to BLP after appeals to N, RS, and V have been dismissed... are the straws to grab at running out? Turnsalso (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the uncivil comnents on this page and say this instead. The lede describes two things. It talks primarily about "militant atheism" in the context of revolutionary extremism, and secondarily that the term is used as a pejorative. The discussion of militant atheism as an oppressive ideology is well-developed in the body of the article, but the discussion of the pejorative use less so. The imprecision of the definition has yielded an article in which Arthur Schopenhauer, Mao Zedong, and comedianne Kathy Griffin are identified as militant atheists. I argue from common sense that there are different connotations of the word militant being used, and these different usages of the word are not well disambiguated in the article. This lack of focus is the cause of POV problems that I and others are concerned about. The majority of this article discusses militancy in the context of Marxist/Leninist revolutionary combatants, and ArtifexMayhem above has pointed out that Julian Baggini's definition uses a similar context. The discussion of the pejorative use of the term is a little bit beyond this scope, but I'm not saying it all has to be removed. What I'm saying is "new atheism" should be expanded to include a section on militancy, where accusations of militancy and intolerance and use of the pejorative can be given the appropriate weight. The section on "new atheism" in this article should be condensed and a "see also" link to "new atheism" be placed there. Nothing verifiable needs to be removed. I don't see that suggesting this article has a POV problem and making suggestions is pointless. I may even tackle some edits to the article this weekend, and wanted to post my intentions on the talk page first. I will say that I am concerned about ownership issues with this article. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like you're withdrawing your support for splitting the article, and now advocate expanding the New atheism article, and trimming the New Atheism section here. Why not create a draft of your "condensed" section at, say, Talk:Militant atheism/draft and we'll go from there. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your comments. I support the efforts of willing to address this issue, rather than split the article. User:Liberal Classic can create a draft of the New Atheism section as he/she suggested and the community can evaluate it. I am willing to compromise on this. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I am withdrawing all support for a split, as I am still of the opinion that most of the "new atheist" content ought to be moved to the article for New Atheism. However, as a compromise measure I would agree to leaving a condensed section on the use of "militant atheist" as a pejorative term in this article with a link pointing to the appropriate section in the New Atheism article. Are we slouching towards consensus? I also can't commit to any time frame as I just found out today that I am working over time this weekend. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The motion to split the article was closed by an administrator today as being no consensus. At this point, I agree to working constructively on improving the article. Are you almost done with your revision of the New Atheism section, User:Liberal Classic? I look forward to hearing your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a neutrality dispute tag

I added a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article, since pretty much every bit of discussion here is a neutrality dispute. Obhave (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1) "Militant atheist" as a pejorative slur and 2) the massive bias in groups following this article

A great deal of the sources simply refer to a common slur applied to people who dare voice an opinion that goes against tradition. "Militant atheist", "militant feminist" and "militant homosexual" all have tens of thousands of hits on Google... atheists are not the only victims of this pejorative. Also, I notice (on this talk page) that...

"This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Theology, Conservatism, Christianity, Anglicanism, Baptist, Catholicism, Eastern, Lutheranism, Methodism, Oriental, Seventh-day Adventist, Islam"

That's *quite* the coalition of religious groups. Small wonder that this article is, at it's core, a coat-rack around an anti-atheist slur. The Baggini definition in the lede is itself merely a use of this slur applied to people with A) a strongly held view about the universe and B) the view that religions are usually harmful (hitherto referred to as "antireligion"). I would also like to point out that antireligionists can have very compassionate motives, similar to the people that fought to inform the public of the harmfulness of smoking while still not wanting to ban or suppress anything or anyone. So there is nothing inherently "militant" about an antireligionist.

Here's what's wrong with the Baggini definition (which the entire article uses), in a nutshell:

1) It is ridiculous to put strong atheists under the same label as antireligionists. These are not the same thing, nor are they even similar things.

2) It is furthermore ridiculous to call either of them inherently "militant". "Militant" should be reserved for people who apply violence in their cause. The whole article makes it sound as if "militant atheists" are already halfway to applying violence, they just need to become "more militant" than they already are.

3) When discussing religious people, "militant" is indeed reserved for people who apply violence in their cause. One never hears a religious person being called "militant" merely for having strong faith or believing that atheism is harmful.

Anyway, I've been reading the Wikipedia guidelines and it seems that this article qualifies as an attack page. I'll submit such a request... we'll see if the administrators want to delete the article or if they prefer the disambiguation solution posted earlier. Also, if someone knows how to notify WikiProject: Atheism and other relevant groups that would be great.

EDIT: OK, the administrator did not agree that this page qualified as an attack page. Time to try the things covered in Wikipedia: Dispute resolution then. I don't have time to do it right now though, I'll probably get to it tomorrow.

Obhave (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as an attack page. Also, whether or not the adjective "militant" actually applies to those being labeled is irrelevant; if they've been so labeled, and the label is notable, then it isn't our place to judge its accuracy. However, the current article is a coatrack, and in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The best course of action right now is to wait for the discussion on splitting the article to finish up, then either act on that consensus, or follow the steps outlined in WP:DR (namely posting an RfC). I am concerned about the number of brand new editors flocking to this page to vote, among other issues, and seeking outside opinions might prove helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jess that the article is not a vio and or an attack page as the concept and or term "militant atheism" is in use by atheist academics these are including in the sourcing of the article already. As for Jess' comments on WP:Coatrack Jess has yet to post what part of Coatrack Jess is talking about. As for Jess' comment on WP:NOTDICT, Jess (from what I understand and admit I could be wrong) appears to be saying that no term, what so ever under any circumstance can have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. If something is a term then it can not be an encyclopedia article as terms are for dictionaries exclusively. That would mean terms like "French kiss" could not have Wiki articles. As Jess appears to be treating the concept of militant atheism as equivalent to terms like "new car". LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@LM I don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting me, but either way, please stop telling other people what I've said. Others can read for themselves what I've written, and see that it's absolutely nothing like what you've said above. If you are legitimately confused at my objection per NOTDICT, then you either haven't read NOTDICT fully, or you've had a problem understanding it which I cannot address. If the former, I'd urge you again to actually read it; we have two concepts linked by one term - NOTDICT explicitly deals with that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jess if a third party person reads your comments here I am sure they will see them as not clarifying but rather evasive. You did not clarify what was wrong with what I posted you also again spent allot of ink stating how you did not like the style of how I responded to you. You again have not posted specifically the passages FROM the article WP:NOTDICT (in ANY of your posting on the talkpage here for people to read) what the WP:NOTDICT says that you think makes this article invalid. As the comment you posted twice...

Jess wrote-"The fact that this article addresses multiple distinct concepts which are arbitrarily linked by a term (and thus, is a violation of WP:NOTDICT)"

Isn't actually from the WP:NOTDICT article and you know that. You also know that I am asking for what part of the actual article you are justifying your comments from and that by you not co-operating with my request you are attempting to frustrate people.

And now that I am trying to get you to do that again you stating that I am misunderstanding you but not HOW I am misunderstanding you. You then stated that you can not fix that without actually even trying. This appears to me as if you are asking for people to respond and collaborate with you but then you don't have to respond and collaborate with other people here. However your comments are here for people to read and see how you have evaded collaborating and or clarifying what your point is. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you won't read the whole policy, then focus on "Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary", specifically the last entry: "The same title for different things". I don't know how to be clearer, and frankly I have no interest in trying. Instead of rehashing the same discussion again, I'm going to leave this conversation and do something productive. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article and you are assuming bad faith in your comment. You want people to see your point but you will not clarify it. You have as of yet to also show the multiple definitions for the term as they exist in the article. I am trying to see how what one source calls militant atheism and what another calls militant atheism both did not hold a doctrine of atheism. Your not making any sense and are just dodging and evading now. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

JimWae listed a number of distinct topics within his split proposal. Among them, he distinguished between state atheism and New Atheism. That these concepts share the topic of "atheism" is no more pertinent than that they share the topic of people or history; the two concepts are clearly separable. Placing them both in a single article is drawing a connection not found in our sources. In doing so, we have related Sam Harris's opposition to religious terrorism to the extermination of theists in the USSR, and we have implied that criticism of the latter is somehow applicable to the former. This is why we have policies like WP:SYN, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:COATRACK which govern our use of sources and limit our ability to combine them in ways which is not, itself, properly sourced. We need to go by what our reliable sources say, and we don't have quality sourcing showing a connection between these concepts. All we have are sources which use the same term to refer to both, which is explicitly what WP:NOTDICT warns against. All of this has already been said above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a step in the right direction. However I find the Coatrack essay to not be saying what your saying (again I could be wrong and apologize if so in advanced). I do not see the Not a Dictionary article saying what your saying either. For the Coatrack label to stick like you pointed out, the topics would have to not share a core atheist doctrine as each of the topics you have pointed out could (a potential not being acknowledged) have a militant element in it. That would mean that like in other articles (i.e. architects are for buildings, parks, roads and infrastructure) that the spectrum could be wide and also the scope. Right now the article (to me) reads as if it is pointing out the militant atheist element in the various types of atheist movements noted in it. That would mean it is not coatrack because the the differences are not big enough to say that the types are not enough related (share an atheist doctrine) and have not been documented to have militant atheism within them. All of this and some essays in general some have the potential to make things worse... Like this one -Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The things I've cited are policies, not essays. I understand you don't see WP:NOTDICT as opposing articles on two concepts linked by a term, or WP:COATRACK as opposing articles which use an article to hang criticism of a different subject. Unfortunately, that is what they're opposed to, and what they're frequently cited to avoid. Since I have no ability (or interest) in explaining wikipedia policy any more explicitly than the policy pages themselves, your disagreement puts us at the same impasse I pointed out days ago. As such, please move on. I won't be posting back in this section unless there's a really compelling reason.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin

Since Kathy Griffin is one of the few people noted as a self-identified militant atheist in this article, I looked up the linked source (apparently only available on the wayback machine at this point). She says: "First of all, I am a complete militant atheist at this point. If you don't believe in God, [even though] you don't try to inflict your atheism on anyone, people get furious. And yet we have to listen to everybody's "God this" and "Jesus that." I'm sorry it bothers you that I don't believe in God. I don't care what you believe in. Whatever.:" Does this mean that a militant atheist is an atheist who doesn't care what other people believe in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll add that the paragraph on Politics: Today appears to be taken almost verbatim from the article http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Antitheism without attribution. In its Section on Further uses of the term Militant Athesist, Bookrags says "The Argentinian Supreme Court Judge Carmen Argibay apparently describes herself as a "militant atheist",[34] and the journalist and campaigner Paul Foot has been praised as a "militant atheist".[35] Comedian Kathy Griffin identifies herself as a militant atheist.[36]" with comments in the previous two paragraphs that "Figures in the 20th century in the USA and the UK who have been described as militant atheists include Joseph McCabe[24]and Michael Newdow.[25][26]" and "Kevin Drumm in the Washington Monthly applies the term to Polly Toynbee.[32]" Other bits and pieces from that article are used in this article also.Jkhwiki (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the other way around, the Bookrags page is in fact based on an earlier version of wikipedia's antitheism article. --Dannyno (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I just happened to come across this article by chance, so I wasn't aware of its history, not had I looked inside the antitheism discussion, but it makes sense now. Since I've already registered my concern about the current article, and I have no desire to try and edit it myself, I'll probably just withdraw from further discussion. Cheers.Jkhwiki (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

citation 16

In citation 16 one line is cited but if you read the article it appears to be the authors opinion that is cited not any demonstrable. This is from the article. "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster," says Dawkins. "But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable."

Their tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."" Note how the article talks about a confrontational tone after a rather relaxed section that is sedate. At other parts the author describes the work of a scientist as being a "passionate apostle of Darwinian evolutionary theory". This article seems to have a pretty oblivious and slanted bias. For that reason I think the quote and cite should be removed.Donhoraldo (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to me to be problems with many of the citations in the article. For example, although I'm not sure of the standard form for Wikipedia citations, concerning the citations on atheism in the Soviet Union, refs [6], [23], [25], [28], [29], ascribed to J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte are in fact to an article by H. J. Berman in a volume edited by them, and another very similar article by Berman is cited in [5], [21], [27]. In some cases Berman is cited twice saying the same thing without it being made clear that Berman in the source in both citations. Furthermore these citations all seem to come from the same few pages of the two articles by Berman (and the quote from [25] is already included in the quote from [23]). This seems a very excessive reliance on one source, expert though he may be, and makes me doubt the balance and accuracy of this entry. By contrast, there seem to be some well-informed, balanced and factual articles on these topics elsewhere on Wikipedia.Jkhwiki (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Blah. You're right. Now I'm even more confused. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why were my references removed?

I provided high-quality references which were then deleted. I'm sorry, Anupam, but you simply cannot authoritatively say in the intro what "militant atheism" actually is when there is a legitimate controversy going on in the world. I doesn't matter how many anti-atheist sources you dig up. Obhave (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, more of the same coming soon... too bad that I can't work on this full-time. Obhave (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Major changes to the article must be discussed here and consensus reached before you add them to the article. If you don't your work will be removed. Please see WP:BRD. To summarize: you have been Bold, you have been Reverted, now it's time to stop being disruptive and Discuss the changes you want to make. If an editor repeatedly reverts that is called edit warring and the editor will be blocked from editing. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Obhave, I understand that you are a new editor here and it is best to be civil and assume good faith. As User:Lionelt mentioned above, it is best to discuss proposed changes to the article, rather than making mass alterations to it. I did find your reference helpful and added it in the appropriate section of the article. As far as your copy/paste of the Merriam-Webster definition of "militant," Wikipedia is not a dictionary; I have however, added a link to the Wikipedia article for "militant" in the introduction. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See my post below. In reply to your comments, I'm sure you are both aware that when dealing with a highly controversial topics, both sides must be heard from. If Baggini (a relatively unknown philosopher with a tiny stub of an article) is allowed to soapbox with impunity in the intro, I don't see why Grayling (a much more notable philosopher) shouldn't be allowed to chime in as well. Banishing my first source, A.C. Grayling, to a remote corner of the article and cutting his statement down to a few words was unacceptable behavior.

I quote: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

-WP:NPOV

Obhave (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Obhave that A. C. Grayling is much more notable philosopher than Julian Baggini. A simple google hits check confirms this. (Julian Baggini has 200k, while Grayling has 650k). Right now I have added A. C. Grayling's views. But I suggest removing Julian Baggini's views, as we don't need so many views of various philosophers. -Abhishikt 02:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While I think that Grayling is a reputable philosopher and Baggini has his own individual perspective (as does Grayling), the "notability" of any philosopher (or scientist, or whatever) is not determined by how many google hits they have. A balanced article will take account of as many different reasonable views as possible.Jkhwiki (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest first read the article A. C. Grayling, specifically A._C._Grayling#Positions_held, then compare it with Julian Baggini article. If anyone does this, would rationally conclude that Grayling is much more notable, published, respected philosopher as compared to Baggini. As Grayling has more published work on this topic, his views would add value to the article.

There would be many more philosophers, each having their own individual perspective, so we should NOT go on listing each individual perspective. Wikipedia is not a place for such things. We should mention the view of the most notable expert of that field. -Abhishikt 03:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A.C. Grayling's opinion was removed from the introduction because not only was it criticism of the term, but, was completely copied and pasted from the original reference, violating WP:COPYVIO. Unlike Grayling, Baggini, who is an atheist himself, does not take sides but explains the definition of the locution in a neutral manner. If you feel that Grayling's comments in the criticism section are not sufficient, I can expand them further. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO mentions that 'brief quotation' can be used. I agree that the paragraph in the article was bit more than 'brief quotation', I would work editing that part tomorrow. But I was expecting that senior wikipedians like you should help editing the article not simply remove the content.

Assuming Baggini's version as neutral and Grayling's version as criticism is violation of WP:NPOV. You are bringing your POV in such decisions. -Abhishikt 03:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not my own point of view that Grayling is criticizing the term, it is evident from the title of the reference itself: 'How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously.' It is for this reason that the term is found in a newspaper interview, not a book on atheism. Baggini does not take sides as to whether militant atheism is bad or good, but simply delineates the concept of militant atheism. Another supporting reference, the Encyclopædia of Theology, provides a similar definition of militant atheism:

Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of makind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.

Moreover, I did not remove the information, as you alleged; I, on the other hand, properly rewrote the information and placed it in its appropriate section in the article, after forming a précis of the original copyright violation. I hope this helps. Dhanyavad, Anupam^Talk 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest we use this source over Baggini's opinion. Given militant atheism only actually existed as a "doctrine" the Encyclopædia of Theology might be as good as it gets. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:ArtifexMayhem, that source is used to further buttress the initial sentence of the article. I also incorporated some information from that source that distinguished militant atheism from theoretical atheism in the introduction. What do you think? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Baggini's opinion should be removed from the lede and replaced with information from the definition above supported by the other sources: That militant atheism is a political doctrine used by political entities and not a "form" of atheism (atheism is not a religion). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that we would need to have reliable sources that support that proposition. The introductory paragraph, as of now, is verifiable and does distinguish militant atheism from atheism, in theory. I hope this helps. With regards, 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• All the sources you have cited support that proposition. Do they not? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Namaste Anupam. You are still using your biased POV and saying A.C. Grayling is critising, which is not the case. Grayling is just defining and explaining the term 'militant atheism'. And he is the notable expert in this area (as oppose to you and me), that's why his defination and explaination of this term should come in the lead para. -Abhishikt 06:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Namaste Abhishikt, if you insist of listing A.C. Grayling's definition of militant atheism, could you please list it in the form of "Militant atheism is XYZ" along with a source? I look forward to your reply. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jkhwiki. We should let both sides be heard. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Obhave (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, the fact that Baggini is an atheist himself make ZERO difference here. The current debate is not about the existence of gods! It is about whether atheists have a right to evangelize their worldview, whether they should evangelize their worldview, and how to label them if they do. Obhave (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term "militant atheism" as applied to contemporary atheists, I looked around for reliable sources that define it and had a hard time finding them. (Maybe they exist and I just didn't find them --- I don't know.) I also noticed that Baggini's book is in the semi-popular series of "Very Short Introductions", which is hardly a primary source. Moreover Baggini himself states that he's describing what he would call atheism that is militant --- perhaps that reflects a general use, but if so there should be several other reliable sources. The closest peer-reviewed article I could find on the topic was one I mentioned elsewhere: Philip Kitcher, Militant Modern Atheism, Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol. 28, No. 1, 2011. Unfortunately, Kitcher doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term; instead, he starts the paper with a one-paragraph summary of what he sees as the "manifesto" of Militant Modern Atheism:

Extended content

In times when violence carried out in the name of religion abounds, when many groups of people seek to interfere with the private lives of others because those targeted are allegedly violating divine commands, and when important discoveries about the world in which we live are questioned, or even denied, because they are supposed to be incompatible with authentic messages from the deity, it is easy to think that things have gone too far. Polite respect for odd superstitions about mysterious beings and their incomprehensible workings might be appropriate so long as the misguided folk who subscribe to them do not seek to convert, coerce or eliminate outsiders, but, when the benighted believers invade the public sphere, it is important that they not be earnest. Further, respect should not extend to the deformations the faithful exert upon the minds of the young: just as children deserve to be protected against parents who refuse to allow them to receive medical attention, so too they are entitled to defence against forms of religious education that will infect and corrupt their abilities to think clearly and coherently.We no longer inhabit the arcadias of Waugh and Wodehouse, in which fanatic believers and their aggressive challengers who ask where Cain found a wife are equally figures of fun. Because of religious belief, our world is an oppressive and dangerous place, and it is time for those who value reason, justice, tolerance, and compassion to do something about it.

Not sure how you would condense that into a definition. Maybe other people will be more successful in finding reliable sources that define the term "militant atheism" as applied to contemporary atheists than I have been.Jkhwiki (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As Anupam had pointed out that the large section of A.C. Grayling's interview was WP:COPYVIO, I have rewritten the part and also included some more refs to support it.

"Militant atheism" is an inaccurate term often used as a pejorative to antitheists and strong atheists. Many modern writers with strong atheistic or anti-religious stance are accused of militant behavior by theists because of their outright and direct criticism of religion. The term itself is a form of political framing and demagoguery by use of the word "militant". British philosopher A. C. Grayling equated the terms "militant atheist" to "militant non-stamp collector" by saying, "how can you be a militant atheist? How can you be militant non-stamp collector? This is really what it comes down to. You just don't collect stamps. So how can you be a fundamentalist non-stamp collector? It's like sleeping furiously. It's just wrong."

refs -

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy
2. http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/21/condemning-militant-atheists.htm
3. http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
4. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2BEZAAAAYAAJ&q=%22militant+atheism%22&dq=%22militant+atheism%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1800&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1900&as_brr=0#v=snippet&q=%22militant%20atheism%22&f=false
5. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism

Let me know if this is fine or needs any improvement -Abhishikt 07:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is by far the best option IMO, but this is certainly an improvement to the current mess. Obhave (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually using the word "militant"...

If you insist on using that blasted word "militant", then at least be forthright and do it unabashedly. Let the word stand on it's own, with a proper link to the Wikipedia definition as Anupam recently provided. Don't try to broaden it's meaning, or rely on a nearby word thus discouraging people from actually looking at the modern definition of the word.

I propose that the introductory statement should read as follows: "Militant atheism is a term appled to atheism which is militant towards religion."

There. Now people will actually look at the definition of militant and be properly informed. And now the uninformed reader will be slightly less inclined to think that the New Atheism movement is clamoring for people to rise up and physically assault (or oppress by force of arms) innocent people.

So how about it? This could be the first step in a long journey to achieving any sort of NPOV consensus with this article. Obhave (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to the word 'militant' in the definition as you've suggested. That being said, the article, in its introduction, does distinguish between its usage in historical events and its recent usage. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll bring in more sources demonstrating just how controversial the term "militant atheism" is. Since you are not an atheist yourself, you could be forgiven for not knowing just how widely, unfairly and hurtfully it is applied in today's world. After I've brought these sources to the talk page, we can all have another discussion on just what to do (and by the way the disambiguation split is definitely not off the table). Obhave (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Obhave, I am an atheist. It is not wikipedia's job to protect atheists from "hurtful" terminology, especially if it is widely if unfairly used. It is wikipedia's job to explain concepts to its readers, and where controversy exists in the literature, to explain that with due regard for weighting. The problem with this article is not that it is "hurtful", but because it is <see above!>. --Dannyno (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I should have avoided the word "hurtful". Here's a rephrase then: "Militant atheist" is a slur, and all slurs on Wikipedia lead to a disambiguation page, or at least cover the word as a slur if it only has one clear meaning. Defining "militant atheist" as a serious thing and then applying it throughout the article is like doing the same with "nigger", "wetback", "FemiNazi" and "militant homosexual". Obhave (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further proposals

The controversy about the modern media use (or rather, gratuitous spamming) of the term "militant atheist" towards any atheist who claims his/her equal right to evangelize a worldview, should not be buried like it currently is.

Furthermore, there is a massive section dedicated to real crimes committed by people who disliked religion. Why on earth would we need a specific "Criticism" section then? Oh wait... the "Criticism" section is entirely devoted to criticizing the New Atheism movement.

I propose that the "Criticism" section be renamed "Criticism of the New Atheism movement" and that a new section named "Response to the modern use of 'militant atheist'" be created, where we can fairly cover the double standard in the way that the modern media employs the term. Obhave (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Humanism subsection is a criticism of atheism in the USSR, not New Atheism. However, I don't see how it's necessary given the content in the rest of the article. If, indeed, there is new content in that subsection, it could surely be integrated. I would suggest we remove that subsection, and rename criticism to "Criticism of New Atheism", which seems to be more descriptive. I'll boldly make that edit now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it now, this could also be collapsed in the New Atheism section above it, though I don't have time to do that now. I'd welcome others to do so, as lots of this info is probably redundant.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The heading "Criticism of New Atheism" is not a good choice. Individuals such as A.C. Grayling are not criticizing the New Atheism movement but rather, are criticizing the term "militant atheism." Furthermore, this article is not about New Atheism per se. The topic of criticism of New Atheism should be discussed in that article. This article should cover New Atheism as it relates to militant atheism. Moreover, deletion of the criticism of militant atheism in the USSR was not warranted. In light of these facts, I am restoring the previous version of the article. However, I am open to other suggestions, such as moving the criticism of militant atheism in the USSR to the section titled "Soviet Bloc." I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, criticism of the USSR should (if it is not redundant) be included in section on the USSR. When that is done, we're left only with criticism of New Atheism, as the term "militant atheism" is applied to it. Indeed, much of it is already covered in the New Atheism section, and so repeating it in a Criticism section directly below is unwarranted. I'm happy to incorporate the two, but largely, and per policy, we should all be working to integrate the criticisms into the article while we're working on the article's other issues.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the difference between the 'media' section and the 'general' section is that the former makes explicit reference to New Atheism or the New Atheist leaders. The latter section, on the other hand, references 'militant atheism' in general without associating it with New Atheism. I hope you can now see the difference. That being said, if we figure out another way to sort out the criticism, I won't object to moving the humanist criticism to the 'Soviet Bloc' section. I hope this helps and thanks for your efforts in trying to improve this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's accurately flesh out the disambiguation proposal

I'm not going to argue "split vs. no split" in this discussion, but rather to form a picture of what such a split would look like. Here's something to get us started.

Militant atheism (disambiguation):

• Violent antireligion or antitheism. For example, the League of the Militant Atheist was an alternate name of the Society of the Godless, which were also proponents of state atheism. [btw I don't speak Russian so I'm relying on other people's translation here]

• A pejorative term applied to outspoken atheists, most notably the New Atheism movement. See also criticism of atheism and discrimination against atheists.

Please discuss, improve, post your own preferred versions, etc.

Obhave (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just modified my earlier post because I was sure that the current editors of this article don't want to lose all the hard work that they've put into criticizing atheism. So I added a link to criticism of atheism. In the interest of fairness, I also linked to discrimination of atheists. Obhave (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for those who deny that there's any controversy

Here's a few for starters. Now no one will be able to deny that the term is used gratuitously (to say the least) and that both it's use and meaning remain controversial to this day. If there will be no disambiguation page, at the very least there should be ample coverage of the heated controversy (from both sides) in the introduction.

• About.com on the unfair use of the term:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistactivism/tp/YouMightBeMilitantAtheist.htm

• Jeffrey Shallit on the unfair use of the term:

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-are-atheists-always-described-as.html

• A.C. Grayling on the unfair use of the term:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

• Psychology Today publishes a critique of the term:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism

• Oliver Burkeman claims that the word "militant" is unhelpful, given it's association with violence:

http://www.oliverburkeman.com/2011/04/on-militant-atheists/

Now that the obvious (perhaps not so obvious to non-atheists) has been demonstrated, we can finally begin.

Obhave (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of these personal and group blog sites do not count as reliable sources; the source by The Guardian has already been incorporated into the article. I will work on incorporating the blog post from Psychology Today, as well as some of the other sources, into the article later today. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that, since you are likely to present the sources unfavorably or bury them somewhere deep down in the article. Let's not screw around here... neither you, I, nor anyone else in this debate is "neutral". Both sides in a controversy should be heard from, and it wont do to have you writing for the "enemy". Obhave (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Obhave, please assume good faith. If you don't like the way Anupam incorporates a source, you're always welcome to revert his edit. Assuming you'll dislike all his edits from the onset is unproductive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that's correct, I could just revert his edit (although I have been advised not to revert anything in this article for a week, due to the edit-warring notice that was placed on me). However I stand by my point. We all have bias, especially on this very issue. Not only is it controversial who and what deserves the label "militant atheist"... it is, at it's core, a matter of subjective opinion. Obhave (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, the page that you linked to clearly states that statements of opinion are an entirely different matter. See statements of opinion and sources on themselves. Now please stop your repeated and disruptive wikilawyering. Are we going to respect the NPOV policy and build an article that presents both sides in this debate, or are we going to dick around and waste each other's time for months? Obhave (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support "dick around and waste each other's time for months" – Lionel ^(talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lionel, for pissing on Wikipedia policy. I'm sure the admins will be very pleased. Obhave (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

C'mon! It was funny! No self-respecting Wikipedian could've resisted making that crack. And besides, this page could use a bit of levity. It's so tense around here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Who and what deserves the label "militant atheist"? Who gets to decide?

There's an ongoing NPOV fight over this article. Other issues on the table include WP:NOTDICT, WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK and WP:SYNTH. It was built by eleven religious WikiProjects as well as WikiProject: Conservatism, but was only recently followed by Wikiproject: Atheism. It has been suggested that the content of the article should be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey asked me to comment on my talk page. I haven't looked into this deeply, but as a fairly militant inclusionist, it seems straightforward to me that this is not a "coatrack" if one or more reliable sources describe any given historical movement as "militant atheism". When sources disagree, of course, cite lots of them to delineate the nature of the disagreement. I've stated my own opinions on NOTDICT on that policy's talk page; in short, I don't think it should be an issue unless we seriously think we can duplicate this entire article as one or more Wiktionary entries (in which case we should and then redirect to them, but I don't think it looks likely). WP:SYNTH doesn't apply given careful wording to match the sources. I'm not aware of the history of related articles to evaluate CFORK at this time. The idea about prominently wikilinking to militant sounds good. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Requests for more editors to look at this page keep showing up on my watchlist, so here I am. I'm going to comment, but I'm not going to put this page on my watchlist, because life is short, so don't ask me. My, my, this discussion reminds me so much of the AfD discussions that erupt with the phases of the moon over pages like Criticism of Judaism or Christianity and violence. My view there is that if there are WP:RS using the term, the subject is notable. That principle holds true whether or not the subject matter pisses off religious people, or pisses off atheists, so I'm fine with keeping this page. About NOTDICT: the lead section of the page at this time is awful, and needs to be completely rewritten. A simple test for COATRACK: find sources—academic, scholarly ones, not somebody's blog or op-ed—that use the term "militant atheism" to describe both state atheism and new atheism. If such sources exist, then this should remain one page. If the only such existing sources deal with one or the other (state atheism but not new atheism, or new atheism but not state atheism), then the page must be split. Full stop. And as for whether the page is becoming a coatrack for bad things people say about atheism, the page needs to have both sides in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. It now has a section about critics of militant atheism. It needs to have another section, after it, about critics of those who use the phrase "militant atheism", RS that say the term is being used as a pejorative against atheists. A lot of the misplaced debate that is currently in the lead should, instead, be moved there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I moved this comment to here from higher in the talk, when I saw the RfC notice. I have not updated the comment to reflect edits since I first made it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit too stringent. If I were starting the article about beta blockers, I'd feel justified to make the article if I had a source saying propranolol was a beta blocker and another source saying that acebutolol was a beta blocker, even if neither source named the other substance. There may well not be any single source that names every single substance from the Eucommia bark to the numbered experimental SR agent in a single place. That shouldn't stop us. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, that works fine for beta blockers, because the blood pressure is a lot lower there. Here, where editors really disagree, you will have endless cries of SYNTH unless you can show high-quality sourcing that treats both state atheism and new atheism as parts of a single subject. It isn't SYNTH to say that propranolol and acebutolol are both beta blockers. It may be SYNTH to say that state atheism and new atheism are parts of the same phenomenon. If I'm hearing you right, the editors arguing for a split may have a point. Those who oppose a split should be in a hurry to show sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, this page was created by a large anti-atheist coalition before Wikiproject Atheism was even notified.

The current article pushes the POV that it is bad for atheists to evangelize their worldview. It pushes the POV that the New Atheism movement is bad. It pushes the POV that A) criticizing religion and B) marching religious people into a gulag(!!!), are actually the same thing, just a matter of degree. WP:NOTDICT states: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by" (emphasis mine). This is why someone proposed a disambiguation page long ago... but the anti-atheist coalition stacked their votes against him/her. A disambiguation page would also address the content fork issue. Is it really necessary to have so many different articles dedicated to atrocities committed by atheists in the Soviet Union? Here's a list of the articles that treat the topic already:

• State atheism
• Criticism of atheism
• Antireligion
• Treatment of Christians in the Soviet Union
• Treatment of Christians in Communist Bloc countries
• Religion in the Soviet Union
• Soviet anti-religious legislation
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1917–1921)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964)
• USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1990)
• Bezbozhnik
• Society of the Godless
• Terrible Triangle
• Holy See-Soviet Union relations

This article is most notably a fork of Criticism of atheism, which does everything this article does only better, and without defining a fucking slur as truth and then applying it!! Having a serious article dedicated to "militant atheism" is like having an article dedicated to "coons", "wetbacks", "FemiNazis", "militant homosexuals" and so on.

All slurs on Wikipedia lead to a disambiguation page or, if the slur has one clear meaning, then at least the article will cover the term as a slur. This slur is no different. The current article defines anyone who evangelizes atheism as "militant". It defines anyone who criticizes what they don't like as "militant". If we were to apply this ridiculous use of "militant" consistenly, everyone would be "militant"! See also this political cartoon to get an idea of the double standard. Atheists barely have to open their mouth, while other groups have to use violence in order to be called "militant".

We have two options: A) Recognize this as a WP:CFORK of criticism of atheism and let "militant atheism" lead to a disambiguation page or B) actually construct an article similar to nigger, except this one would have to cover a more wide range of meanings. Obhave (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam's revert of the CNN reference

I removed this from the intro: "...who share a belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

And commented: "Let the New Atheism page speak for itself... the CNN quote is available there in a more neutral form and context"

Anupam then reverted this, and commented: "rv - new atheism needs to be defined here as a criticism is presented on it"

May I remind you, Anupam, that this is not a definition... this is CNN's commentary of what the "policy" of the New Atheism movement is. This is a matter of opinion, as the New Atheism movement is not a centralized organization with a fixed policy.

Once again, you are discouraging the uninformed reader from clicking on other articles and studying matters for themselves.

Obhave (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried attributing CNN instead. User: Lionelt reverted the change and said "attribution unnecessary--if you feel strongly about this--let's talk about it"... and then he makes no attempts to talk about it. Obhave (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Obhave. Why do we need to define the term here, particularly using only one source?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining terms in the lede is common practice. Summarizing the section in the article in the lede is also common practice. This definition of the term, or as Obhave refers to it, "commentary", seems congruent with the section, further down, "New Atheism." Obhave, we don't delete sourced content, even "commentary", just because you don't like it. WP is not censored. This article is about militant atheism: and that's what we're going to write about. Do you have a rationale for your position based on policy that you can succinctly explain to us? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And what reasons do you have against actually attributing CNN for their opinion? Anything? Anything other than your militant anti-atheism, that is? Obhave (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't productive. Please concentrate on the article and not each other. I don't think it's necessary to define the term in this case. While it may occur on other articles regularly, it is also fairly regular that we don't define every single term that we link in other instances, so that's certainly not a policy-based argument either. The description we're providing seems to be rather one-dimensional, and IMO doesn't entirely convey the New Atheism article (which, itself, needs expanding). I like the wording just saying "New Atheism movement", as it's succinct, and doesn't suffer from that problem. So, again, is there a specific reason we're defining it, and if so, why are we only quoting from one source?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to define the New Atheism movement because it is being related to militant atheism here. Apart from CNN, do you have another source that defines New Atheism? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest look at the first couple of sentences from the New Atheism article, and it's sources. I copied the same for you here.

"New Atheism refers to a 21st century movement in atheism. The term, which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of Wired magazine, is applied, sometimes pejoratively, to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period 2004–2008" -Abhishikt 07:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The source used in the first sentence of that article does not indicate the position of New Atheism. Moreover, the introduction of that article also uses the same CNN reference to define it. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anupam, you want an actual definition? OK here's the definition of militant that's actually in use in the sources of this article.

"Anyone who criticizes anything is militant"

We should be consistent with our terms!! Therefor, in light of this wonderful use of the word "militant" that the article uses, we should continue applying it. Anyone who criticizes atheism is a "militant anti-atheist". And hey, since Baggini defines anyone who evangelizes atheism as militant, OBVIOUSLY we should define all christian missionaries, clergy members and everyday evangelists as "militant Christians". Great, let's roll with this definition... anyone who criticizes or evangelizes anything is "militant". Obhave (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Anupam No, that quote doesn't indicate the "position of New Atheism", but it does define the "movement" of New Atheism, and it's the movement we're defining. I don't know what the "position of New Atheism" is. Further, while the CNN article is quoted in that article, it isn't used as a definition. In every source I can find, I see a common thread of defining "the New Atheist movement" as a series of books written by a short list of authors. Even the New Atheism article places emphasis there, citing some of the same sources. Those sources include Wired, Stegner's Article, The New Atheism (Stegner, p11), Tom Flynn, even response books, such as The Truth Behind the New Atheism (David Marshall, p9). So once again, why are we quoting from only 1 source?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the more sources I track down, the more I'm finding agreement per above. Especially given that the majority of this article discusses the oppression and murder of religious people historically, using a single source to quote "New Atheists believe religion shouldn't be tolerated" is implying a connection for which we have no source. This is a neutrality issue, and as such, I'm removing the quote until we can come up with better wording. If you feel some clarification is necessary, I'll propose "...to describe the leaders of the New Atheism movement, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens." I don't think this clarification is necessary, but it's the best we have per our sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This may be a valid compromise, as it mentions by name founding members of the movement, all fairly well-known names, whose views are well-known as well. This too, however, might serve only as an invitation to remove the criticism section below it by those who perceive it as being slanderous to the individuals named. Perhaps something more akin to "the New Atheism movement, whose constituent literature makes the case that religion 'should not simply..." etc., or "...and Christopher Hitchens, whose literature asserts that religion 'should not simply..." etc. A quote from such literature may be helpful instead as well if a third-party quote would draw too many objections. Turnsalso (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found other scholarly source that describe the New Atheism movement in these terms and have added them into the article. The first reference it titled "Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1" which states:

For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.

The second reference is titled "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter", which states:

For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.

These sources both support what the CNN statement says. Per WP:RS and WP:V the information is appropriate for inclusion within the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)