Talk:Militant atheism

militant atheism. aka one of the last hopes for a world based on reason and rational thought instead of idolatry and superstition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.212.223 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Split article?

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)

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. Keep; oppose split. 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)