Talk:Militant atheism

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)

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)

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.[1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8],

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". ...[9] 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.[10] And then uses it. As does Phil Zuckerman [11] [12] 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? [13] 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. [14],[15] 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)

"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 [16]. --Dannyno (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion and Dumping Quotes..., it appears we have strong consensus to not conflate "atheist fundamentalism" to this topic. The discussion has been open for 2 weeks and garnished substantial support, with only one editor opposing. I agree with that consensus - being a "fundamental atheist" does not make one militant, we don't have adequate sourcing conflating the two, and combining them in this way appears to be WP:SYNTH. As such, I'll go ahead and make the change. (I already had earlier, but was reverted by Anupam on the grounds that he and JimWae had discussed it and agreed it would stay. As that is not the case, I'll be reinstituting my change).   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that it was reverted. Again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is unbelivable... this article is about the term militant atheism, bad enough as that is (WP:NOTDICT). But now they want to widen the potential for coatrackery even more? So now anyone who uses "militant atheist" and "atheist fundamentalist" can be included in the article? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

Also, since (apparently) "militant" and "fundamentalist" are synonyms, should we do the same for Christians? Anyone who believes something very strongly is "militant"? Yeah... no. I'm removing the references to "atheist fundamentalism" in the lede. If you want to make an actual article on that particular term, you're welcome to it.

Obhave (talk) 16:08, 15 July 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."[17] 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 [18] 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."[19]

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" [20] So much for a probabilistic reality [21]. 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)

WP:COATRACK is an essay Jess. But fair enough. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatrack is, but it's based on WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE which are not. Anyway... All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:30, 14 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)

All, Do we have consensus here? -Abhishikt 18:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We clearly do not have consensus for that as indicated by the RfC above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of above suggested paragraph, you don't agree with? This is re-written as per your suggestion and it's all well sourced and from notable experts in this field. Please try to give constructive feedback. -Abhishikt 18:31, 14 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)

Do you a source that compares the term militant atheism with nigger? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

They're both slurs. You can't deny this. But I'm sure you will, since you're a militant anti-atheist (to use your own definition of the word "militant"). Obhave (talk) 11:41, 14 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 religion as "militant". If we were to apply this ridiculous use of "militant" consistenly, everyone who evangelizes or criticizes anything 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)

Agreed, Obhave. This article has less to do with militant atheism than conflating atheism with antireligion and listing antireligious intolerances. Delete the damned thing and let the counterknowledge merchants vandalise somewhere else. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to bow out of this one. Obviously I don't understand the controversy - I am very surprised to see someone comparing "militant atheism" to ethnic slurs; I wouldn't have even thought of it as an insult. As long as the content ends up somewhere the name just isn't that important to me. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If it isn't clear enough from discussion elsewhere, I agree with splitting or merging this article into the plethora of others we have on the topic. If this information is already in those articles, then it should be deleted. Alternatively, I would support keeping this article, but moving a good deal of the content in it (such as that on New Atheism) elsewhere, but I think that approach is less than ideal. If we keep the article, it should be focused on the term, and how the term's usage is notable, and delegate content regarding the actions of supposed militant atheists to the appropriate articles, summarizing them only briefly if at all. I agree with JimWae, Trypto, Obhave, and the plethora of others who've said this is a CFORK / POVFORK / COATRACK, a violation of NOTDICT for conflating two distinct concepts, a violation of SYNTH for drawing conclusions about the topic not explicitly contained in any individual source, and so forth. There's lots of solutions... but the current article just doesn't cut it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in on the fact, that this same RfC was held a couple of days ago where many users, like yourself, User:Wnt, agreed with your assessment. This article is not a coatrack but simply lists different manifestations of a single, well-defined concept. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So the oppression and murder of theists in the USSR in the mid 1900s is the same concept as a couple authors who recently wrote books condemning terrorism? Do we have any sources which draw that connection? Or, are we combining sources for each of those concepts to draw our own connections? (BTW, the split discussion was not an RfC)  — Jess· Δ♥ 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are once again distorting the position of New Atheism and setting up a straw man; the reference titled "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter", clearly 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.

The several references in the introduction define militant atheism as an "atheistic hostility to religion." Both the policies of the Soviet Union and the New Atheists fall under this well defined concept of militant atheism. Should you need more clarifying, consider reading the references thoroughly before commenting again. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked if we had any sources which draw a connection between New Atheism and the oppression and murder of theists in the USSR in the mid 1900s. The ref you provided does no such thing. I'll have to take that to mean we don't have a source connecting these two distinct concepts, and instead we're drawing our own connections from separate sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We do need a source that connects the two. Does anybody have one? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:27, 15 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)

No. You've provided 2 sources, one of which says nothing of tolerance. The other makes a passing reference. This is not sufficient to implicitly conflate the oppression and murder of religious people in the USSR with New Atheism, which is what we are doing when we speak of that oppression, and then say only "New Atheists think religion should not be tolerated". This is a neutrality concern, not an editorial one. My compromise of listing the authors (to whom the term has widely been applied, as recorded by a plethora of sources) is neutral and avoids that problem. What, exactly, is the problem with using that wording?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Anupam You undid all my changes to the article, as well as removing the neutrality tag, without providing any reason for doing so in edit summaries or discussion. I was explicit in my edit summaries as to why each change was made. In doing so, you've reintroduced unsourced and incorrect content into the article. I'm going to undo your revert given that you've provided no explanation. If you have a problem with individual changes, please handle them individually, and discuss the reason for your opposition here first. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't agree with that assessment, then look at a website for New Atheism yourself, which states that it is self-characterized by:

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

This statement supports exactly what the CNN reference is getting at. You stated the problem yourself. Before presenting New Atheism as relating to militant atheism, we must first define its characteristics. If we do not, then one might assume that New Atheism advocates the same thing that the Soviet Union militant atheists did. I do not mind listing the authors; you, however, made multiple edits that prevented me from undoing that single edit. I do, however, think that a better place to mention them is under the New Atheism section, where they have already been listed. Adding them in the introduction, in my opinion, is not necessary since New Atheism includes more than just those authors and a plethora of supporters; as such, IMO it is best to define the locution in the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not undo all of the changes you made to the article as you have incorrectly stated. Please re-read my edit summaries. You removed several references to the word 'atheist fundamentalist' which User:JimWae and I had already compromised on above. Originally, the word was even included in bold face in the first sentence of the introduction. You then proceeded to remove multiple references from the article, which was not a good idea because many of these claims are contentious. I did restore several of your edits in the article - please see those edits. For example, I readded your statement from "Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith" and restored your removal of the "usage guide" edit. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I wasn't aware of an ongoing discussion regarding 'atheist fundamentalist'. I'll participate there, and we can undo its removal for the time being. Mentioning that in your edit summaries would have been helpful. You mentioned nothing in edit summaries except that my edits were "unexplained", which is untrue. I also kept in the CNN wording for now. 2) newatheism.org is hardly a reliable source. 3) the current wording implies that new atheists advocate the same thing as the "militant atheists" in the USSR, in that you've mentioned the latter, and then only said about the former that they're "intolerant". That is the problem with the current wording. Removing it doesn't share that problem. I'm still not seeing a problem with simply listing the authors to which the term applies, and that seems to coincide with our sourcing as of yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on... when you said JimWae and you compromised on the use of "atheist fundamentalist" above, were you referring to the two conversations 2 weeks ago, Dumping quotes... and Atheist fundamentalism, where every editor who weighed in objected to their use except you? That is all I can find on this page. If I'm missing something, please show me.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, yes, there was a discussion held above. User:JimWae made the compromise edit here which moved the term from the first sentence to the section on New Atheism, to which the term is often applied. I did not contest this edit. Thank you for allowing the reversion of that information. I did not endorse inserting newatheism.org into the article but specifically listed it as a "self-published" source above in order to further buttress the CNN source. The current wording does not imply that the New Atheists advocate the same thing as militant atheists and once again, this is evidenced by the following clause: "Recently both the term militant atheist and the term atheist fundamentalist,[15][16][17][18] have been used..." I would also request that you please revert back to the previous version as you removed multiple references from the article, which was not agreed upon. It is beneficial to have multiple references to support a statement in the article. Moreover, as I did state in my edit summary, it was not helpful to remove the second Berman reference, which was published under a different publisher altogether. I would appreciate if you could restore the previous version and we can discuss your proposed changes together. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. That's JimWae partially acting on the consensus above, which clearly indicates that "atheist fundamentalism" is not to be used as a synonym of "militant atheism", and that sources using one should not be applied to the other. When you said there was a discussion and compromise, I took you at your word and reverted my addition... I actually felt a bit embarrassed for not seeing the discussion before I made my changes. Since there was no such discussion or compromise, I'm going to act on consensus formed above and re-remove the bits on "atheist fundamentalism". I'll make a note in those discussions of my reasons as well.

Regarding sourcing, I'm not aware of any major references I removed outright. I removed a whole bunch of duplicate references which were copy/pasted throughout the article. I also removed a ref to Witte which used Berman as his primary source of data (and nearly identical prose to boot), since citing Berman and sources derived from Berman is redundant. There were also some concerning "atheist fundamentalism" and the like which I removed (and will now re-remove), which are just disparaging remarks about atheism generally, and don't concern the article. Can you point me to a place I explicitly removed a reference not already present in the article? If so, I can either explain or revert it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a compromise. As you admit, you did not read the discussions or look at the edit history of the article which delineated its final location. Reliable sources indicate that the terms 'militant atheist' and 'atheist fundamentalist' are applied to the New Atheists and therefore the term merits inclusion in the article. If it does not, then per WP:N, a new article will be created. You removed several references from the article. It is acceptable for a reference to be used more than once in an article if it supports a statement. Per WP:V, it is actually mandated that each sentence is supported by reliable sources. This is a contentious topic and the more references we have per statement, the better. This will ensure that at least the content of the article is not contested. Also, it is not for you to decide which references are acceptable. It is acceptable to use different academic journals that used Berman's information because they are reliable sources that are published under different academic publishing companies. I request you to please reinstate the material you deleted from the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood my reply. I thought I had not read the discussion, because you told me editors here already agreed to include "atheist fundamentalist" material, and I hadn't read anything like that. I took you at your word, and undid my edit, thinking "oh, man, that's embarrassing. I should have been more diligent checking the talk page". Come to find out, no such thing ever happened. I had read the relevant discussion already, which was a landslide of editors opposing inclusion of the material, opposed only by you. If you disagree with consensus, you're welcome to provide new sourcing or arguments above. You're also welcome to create a new article if it meets WP:N, but I'd strongly suggest that the term "atheist fundamentalist" does not.

Regarding sourcing, I'd ask again that you provide a specific example. The diff that removed them and the titles removed would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You chose to delete references and are now asking to point out the difference? Simply look at your revert here, and look at the original Soviet Bloc section, specifically the words "deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions." You will notice seven references that support this statement, which I, like the rest of the section, mostly authored. After your mass deletion, there were only five references there. Why? All of the references following that statement supported it. Please reinstate the reliable sources that were originally there as I had them. You must first gain consensus before removing those references as well as a large quantity of information from the article, such as the source from the BioLogos Foundation. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, specific diffs and titles would be helpful. However, it appears you're looking at reference 9 and 10 of this version: "Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R." and "Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide." Both are still present in the article. Richmond is still ref 10, and Simon is now ref 30. No deletion of content took place... just removal of duplicate info. The BioLogos cite (I assume you mean #16 in the original diff) is to a blog representing the personal views of a non-notable non-expert. That does not qualify as a reliable source, and citing it 3 times in multiple paragraphs is undue weight. I explained this in edit summaries. I'll also point you to WP:OWN. Please work collaboratively with other editors. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that right now we have a couple editors supporting the change from the CNN def for New Atheism, and I believe for solid policy-based reasons. I've left out that change since you kept reverting edits to the lead, but you haven't addressed my proposal recently. I'm not going to act on it for a bit longer to allow further discussion, but I'd point out it's that change to which this section is devoted, so if you have further contentions with other changes, then formulating your thoughts and posting to a new section may be most appropriate, so topics don't get jumbled. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you admit to unilaterally deleting those references despite the fact that they supported the aforementioned assertion. "Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R." states: "Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities." Why would you delete that reference when it supports the sentence which precedes it? Similarly, "Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide." supports the sentence as well as it states: "Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite." I would appreciate if you could please restore those references immediately. If not, then I will restore them. A reference can be used more than once in an article, mind you. The Biologos Foundations deals with matters on religion and science and Ian H. Hutchinson is professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is as qualified to speak on the issue as Richard Dawkins, who is a biologist, is. That is not your decision, however; I will point you to WP:RS which states: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I would advise that you revert your edit as you have not gained consensus to remove it. Once again, if you do not restore it, then I will. I would also point you to WP:OWN. You have not contributed to most of the content in the article and insist on making unilateral edits without discussion. Also, at this point there is no consensus on removing CNN and other supporting references. I suggest you allow other editors to comment. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, they were not deleted. They're all still there in that very section. Is there some reason we desperately need 7 refs for a single uncontested statement? Putting so many refs places improper emphasis on certain content, adds weight concerns if the content is being cited multiple times, makes the page more unweidly and difficult to edit, and so on, just to name a few issues. Why is 5 refs not sufficient for that sentence? Considering the number of reverts you've made today, I'd suggest working collaboratively, detailing specifically why you believe we need to duplicate these refs to pile on to that sentence, and trying to garnish support for the proposal; edit warring is not productive.

Regarding the BioLogos cite, Ian Hutchinson is not a "professional journalist or a professional in the field on which he's writing", and the video blog of a non-notable non-expert is not a reliable source, indeed per the exact passage of WP:RS you quoted. If you disagree, you're welcome to inquire as WP:RSN for a broader opinion. Lastly, I'm not sure you understand WP:OWN; that I've admittedly not contributed most of the article content is precisely why it wouldn't apply to me. You, on the other hand, are still making statements implying that your previous contributions to the article entitle you to a larger say. That is simply not true.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"right now we have a couple editors supporting the change" -- and don't forget about the couple of editors who oppose the change. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, all the other editors LEFT because you and Anupam are impossible to work with. You revert EVERY single move that has been made. Not a SINGLE step has been taken in making the article comply with NPOV policy. Obhave (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Lionel Right now the only editor who's stated opposition to the compromise is Anupam. Even so, ultimately, this isn't a vote, and unless there's a compelling reason, neutrality concerns will have to be addressed, but if you have another proposal for doing so, you're welcome to chime in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Voicing support for the keeping of the CNN reference. One could link to the article on New Atheism as a q.v.-like statement in order to clarify the movement's beginning or source, however the CNN reference presents an over-arching attitude of the constituent literature of the movement and therefore links why it is applied, justly or not, to the New Atheist movement. Concerning BioLogos, I am seeing lack of concensus for removal of the reference, especially since it offers additional, reasoned clarification from an individual with similar qualifications to the movement's leading proponents on the definition of the terms applied here. I will go through with a revert until the issue is settled, for either point or against. Turnsalso (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also reverted un-discussed edits, which one would like to be discussed in detail on the talk page. Turnsalso (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My take is that we can keep the CNN reference and if we at all need definiation of 'New Atheists' in this section, then it should come from first 2 or 3 sentenses of that article. Taking definition directly from source can be biased, that's why we discuss so much on LEDE. -Abhishikt 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm....

The Biologos Foundations deals with matters on religion and science and Ian H. Hutchinson is professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is as qualified to speak on the issue as Richard Dawkins, who is a biologist, is.
— User:Anupam 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reality check:

1. The Biologos Foundation is an advocacy group: "BioLogos explores, promotes, and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith." — About The BioLogos Foundation , BioLogos.
2. Ian H. Hutchinson is a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Full stop.
3. Richard Dawkins is a biologist(evolutionary), ethologist, author, outspoken atheist and prominent critic of religion that is often labeled a New Atheist.

The videocorrection video(or explanatory text) , Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists, is not a reliable source on the topic and it cannot be used here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No one cited the video. The text surrounding it was used in the citation. The BioLogos Foundation can be used as a reliable source. According to WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." New Atheism concerns itself with religion and science and therefore, Hutchinson, being a scientist, is qualified to write on the subject of New Atheism, which is why his entry was published in The BioLogos Foundation website in the first place. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The BioLogos Foundation is not a news outlet. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor is New Atheism within the field of science. Nor is an professor of engineering a professional in that field.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: regarding "Right now the only editor who's stated opposition to the compromise is Anupam," what compromise are you referring to? For the record, I have already voiced support to retain the CNN source. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that a while ago. You responded before the compromise was proposed. Since being proposed, Anupam was the only one to oppose it. To reiterate, we have a multitute of sources which define "New Atheism" as pertaining specifically to the writings of a short list of authors. The New Atheism article additionally defines the 'movement' in that way. Our article deals exclusively with those authors when discussing New Atheism, and all our related sources address them by name. On the other hand, we have 1 reference from CNN which defines New Atheism as a position of "intolerance to religion". Quoting from that reference immediately before and after discussing the oppression and murder of religionists in the USSR provides a very real implication that "intolerance" means something different than the CNN author intended, particularly when we're already describing it as "militant". This is a neutrality issue. There is no reason I can see that we've picked out one reference of a boatload of others to cite when it has such a neutrality issue. Per discussion here, I proposed the compromise that sidesteps that issue by simply listing the names of the authors to whom we're addressing. That compromise has received some support. The only opposition I've heard was from Anupam that "the CNN quote is acceptable". I don't find that to be a compelling argument.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And, we have another addition and revert reintroducing Biologos into the article. Anupam, this is getting tendentious. The biologos ref has been discussed, and consensus appears to support removing it. Anupam's edit summary was "rv - does not have to qualify as an RS to be a part of the external links section; please see WP:ELMAYBE". According to ELMAYBE, such links can be provided if they "contain information from a knowledgeable source". Biologos is a Christian advocacy group, the link is a blog, and the author is a non-notable non-expert in an entirely unrelated field. This simply does not qualify, and that's been pointed out numerous times above. I'll remind you of m.o.p's section below... please stop reverting nearly every change to the article without discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop pointing to a consensus that does not exist. User:Abhishikt, and User:ArtifexMayhem are the only users that oppose the link. User:Lionelt supported its inclusion and User:Turnsalso even reverted you when you removed it, along with your other mass deletions in the article. I am surprised that you accuse me on being tendentious despite the fact that I pursued the proper avenue for this issue at WP:RSN, rather than edit war, as you have done. I am awaiting on the response there which will determine whether it can stay in the article as a reference, not as an external link. Moreover, I did not even re-add the reference to the article but added the link as an external link, which is something completely separate. The same new user that reverted me placed an link to a polemical TED talk by Richard Dawkins and reworded the article to state that God's nonexistence is a fact, not a belief, which is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, the reason User:Abhishikt reverted me was because he felt that it constituted a "site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," which constitutes advocacy of a particular viewpoint (see User:Abhishikt's unjustified appeal to WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2). By the way, User:MasterofPuppets' section was interpreted to be addressed to you. Please assume good faith and take the time to reflect on what you have posted to me in light of the above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As BioLogos is not a recognized authority on this topic consensus is irrelevant. Also, by my reading of the edit summary Abhishikt edited the words of the source article because the "reference clearly states - "mere fact that there isn’t a god" and was in fact supporting WP:NPOV. MasterofPuppets can best interpret his own remarks. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that that is what the reference originally said. However, User:Abhishikt stated that he changed the word "belief to fact" because "that word degrades the meaning of the sentence." If you want to quote the reference, then I request that you please add quotation marks around the remark. If the words are not in quotes then that statement is advocacy and violates WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than pander to middle school bickering, I'm going to keep things short and bulleted. 1) Consensus is not a vote. Biologos violates policy as a RS and guideline as an EL, which represent broad consensus throughout the community. Your "number of editors" is incorrect, but even if it weren't, consensus still opposes inclusion. 2) Thank you for taking it to RSN, like I asked you to. 3) Please stop throwing around unfounded accusations and interpreting other user's words outside of what they've said. Other editors can read the discussion for themselves. 4) Abhishikt reverted because of WP:ELNO #2 and #11. To represent his revert as only #2 is intentionally disingenuous.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and there is no consensus as there were a number of editors who disagreed with your removal of the source. Also, consensus is not a vote. I have taken the source to WP:RSN on my own accord and am awaiting a reply from them, which will determine the final outcome, which I will respect. I understand you're new here on Wikipedia. As a result, with regards to your last comment, please see WP:NPA. Thanks for your understanding in this matter, Anupam^Talk 07:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1) You're welcome to disagree, I suppose, as long as you're not edit warring over consensus again. 2) Nothing I've said qualifies as WP:PA. 3) I'm not new.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I was never edit warring. I introduced for the first time, an external link which was previously a reference. It is currently being evaluated at WP:RSN. I hope this helps. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

BioLogos is in no way a reliable source, nor are they neutral enough to merit a position as an external link. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Placed a reference version of the current lead on a talk-draft page.

Talk:Militant_atheism/2011JUL13-LeadDrafting contains a reference version of the current lead with the sources broken out for reference and comparison. Please have a look. Feedback is desired. So this baby seal walks into a club. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Artifex! That actually is helpful for me as I'm reviewing the lead. I'm sure once I get the time I'll be able to go through and verify each of the refs a little more easily now! :) All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic, but I can't completely keep my mouth shut, so I guess that makes me a militant atheist. :) My suggestion (for anyone who cares, and the fewer still who might agree) is that if this article should exist, the definition should be as neutral as possible while being consistent with the sources. Just as an example: "Militiant Atheism is the belief that religion is not only false but harmful and should be publically challenged wherever possible." The problem with definitions like "Militant Atheism is atheism that is hostile and intolerant toward religion" is that they assume exactly the perjorative sense of "militant" that's in dispute. You could then have a section on Criticisms of Militant Atheism (it's intolerant, doesn't give proper weight to the social aspects of religion, intolerence of religion in the Soviet Union led to dreadful consequences etc. etc.) and a section on Criticisms of the use of the term (Grayling comments etc. etc.). In my opinion, none of the historical information belongs in this article. If I wanted to know about the League of Militant Atheist, I'd go to what seems like a very well-researched and informative article on the Society of the Godless that already exists on Wikipedia. I would not come here. There is no point in trying to reproduce that information, and other historical facts, in this article in a vastly less reliable form. Finally, if people are identified as Miltant Atheists, there should be sources that show they are really Militant Atheists in the sense defined by the article. I think (almost) everyone would agree that it's just silly to even mention Kathy Griffin.Jkhwiki (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said in thread Talk:Militant_atheism#Why_were_my_references_removed.3F you are mistaking and violating WP:NPOV in assuming that A.C.Grayling's views/comments on 'militant atheism' are criticism of the term. It is not criticism, it is just explaination of what the term is. Grayling is the notable expert in this area (as oppose to you and me), so his explaination of the term should come in LEDE. -Abhishikt 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Abhishikt, to whom are you speaking? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing that to User:Jkhwiki -Abhishikt 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV dispute tag??? Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME??????????

Diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439304125&oldid=439303853

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439306187&oldid=439305595

There are some SERIOUSLY unscrupulous people working on this article, but I never expected anyone to stoop this low...

Obhave (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And again (see below)... considering there's an ongoing RfC regarding neutrality, this really needs to be added back in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I support that the NPOV dispute tag needs to be added, this article is far from neutral. -Abhishikt 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the NPOV tag for the article. -Abhishikt 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Obhave: using all capitals in this manner is considered screaming and is strongly discouraged. Please edit the section title so it is in compliance with talk page policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess' removal of references

User:Mann jess has unilaterally proceeded in removing even more references from the article today. In his edit summaries, he stated "Refs do not back up assertion that he was the first militant atheist." While this is true, those references still support the assertion that Charles Bradlaugh was a militant atheist. This is a contentious assertion to make in the first place and reliable sources ensure that the statement is not contestable. I request that they be reinstated. In another edit, User:Mann jess, stated" ref isn't direct about label, or clear about its indended usage." However, the reference states:

Madame Blavatsky, a Russian, suspected of being a sypy, converted Anglo-Indians to a passioante belief in her Theosophy mission, even when the Jingo fever was the hottist, and in her declining years she succeeded in winning over to the new-old religion Annie Besant, who had for years fought in the forefront of the van of militant atheism.

. In light of these facts, I request that he please reinstate this reference and revert his edits. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding the motion. Would this be an appropriate place to discuss some of the other unilateral edits made without discussion? Turnsalso (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest each edit get its own section. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, there's a wholesale revert, which includes inappropriately removing the NPOV tag for an ongoing RfC regarding neutrality, inappropriately reintroducing "atheist fundamentalist" despite large consensus in 2 sections above to the contrary, reintroducing duplicate and improper content into the article, and so forth. I don't know exactly what else to do at this point, but this is getting absurd.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The removal of "atheist fundamentalist" is opposed by User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:lovemonkey, and myself. It appears the concensus may be in favor of maintaining it. Turnsalso (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking the section again. Anipam is the only one who weighed in to oppose. I take it you're Turnsalso, ip?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMilitant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439394843&oldid=439392851 Looks like Lionelt at least also opposed; I'd suggest checking the section again as well. Turnsalso (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a different discussion regarding a different issue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the entire group of edits have been reverted again, and no attempt as of yet has been made to discuss any reasons for that reversion. Turnsalso, you're the one who reverted. Please either post why you disagree with each of the edits you reverted (including why you feel that consensus formed in Dumping quotes and Atheist fundamentalism is not sufficient for the removal of the term), or please reinstate those edits. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I support User:Turnalso's reverts. There is absolutely no reason for you to remove a large amount of information and references from the article. User:Lionelt, User:Turnsalso, and I all stated that we opposed your edits including the removal of atheist fundamentalism, the BioLogos statement and reference, as well as the mass amount of references you removed from the Soviet Bloc section and Politics section. You have been bold and have removed this information and you have been reverted. Please do explain why you did this and collaborate with the other editors here rather than unilaterally making huge undiscussed alterations to the article. I personally did not revert you and attempted to start this discussion here but you have not replied to your reasons for removing such a large amount of information. Moreover, other editors clearly oppose your actions. Moreover, User:Turnsalso explained why he reverted you in two places: 1 and 2. As such, perhaps you should acknowledge the fact that there is no consensus, which you claim, to remove atheist fundamentalism, BioLogos, or the references. This points to the fact that the version of the article before your mass deletions should be in place right now. Please undo your other deletions as well. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Lionel opposing removal of "atheist fundamentalist" terminology, and he didn't participate in the two discussions where consensus formed 2 weeks ago. That leaves you and Turnsalso (who also didn't participate) opposing established consensus on the matter. As far as Turnsalso explaining his revert, I see him 1) opposing removal of the CNN ref, 2) opposing removal of the biologos cite, 3) asking for discussion. Taking them in order... (1) was not part of the edit he reverted. (2) could have been undone individually, and does not address the rest of the content. (3) there is no requirement to discuss changes before making them. If he wants to discuss the edits, he's welcome to do so. As I noted above, he has not. Therefore, as it stands, he has reverted a good deal of content without providing any reason. I'm welcoming him to either provide a reason, or to reintroduce the content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he stated that he seconded the statement that your mass deletion of references was not in order as well. Moreover, User:JimWae enacted a compromise between myself and him on the issue which was accepted as de-facto; your version, therefore, is not the compromise version but is a unilateral edit. Please carefully re-read the discussions. Hopefully, User:Lionelt and User:Turnsalso will comment and clarify this. Also he opposed the removal of the BioLogos citation, which I also opposed and explained above. As such, there is no need to remove it since you're apparently the only one who wants to see it gone. Moreover, you have yet to explain why you went through and deleted all of the references regarding Bradlaugh and Besant. I started the discussion in order to point out that that was incorrect to do so. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Turnsalso reverted my edits because they were "undiscussed", both in his edit summary and the diff you quoted above. He then made no effort to actually discuss those edits. I'm asking him to discuss them, a fairly reasonable request, and you keep chiming in to argue with me. This conversation is going nowhere productive. Also, please stop calling JimWae's edit a compromise. It is very clearly not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a partial reason he reverted them. He also stated that he was "seeing lack of concensus for removal." I will continue to call that edit a compromise, because that's what it was. And since you're not going to try to discuss your removal of references with me, I'm going to assume that you agree with my assessment. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to add my voice to m.o.p.'s that Jess your large-scale editing is not helpful. That makes at least 4 editors who have criticized your editing. I recommend that you attempt to persuade us that your ideas for the article are an improvement. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm... what? m.o.p said nothing of large-scale editing. He talked below of reverting without discussion, and I'm fairly certain he wasn't referring to me. If I'm mistaken, I'd welcome him to clarify. However, the only reverts I made left out every bit of contested material, only reintroducing unobjectionable material that Anupam said he wasn't able to separate from the objectionable parts. All of my edits have continually been reverted, continually for reasons like "unexplained edits" or "not discussed", after I made every effort to separate each edit and meticulously explain reasons in edit summaries.

Since being reverted, every time, I opened discussion on the talk page, and since this last reversion, I've specifically left the material out of the article and asked... begged... the editor who reverted me to actually give me any reason for wholesale reverting 25+ edits, which he still hasn't done. For someone who so desperately wanted my edits discussed, that behavior seems odd, and I can't fathom any way to make myself more available to discussion than spending the entire day on the talk page asking him for input.

4 editors criticizing me? I don't know how to respond to that... #1 has opposed every single change to the article which has aimed for neutrality, and expressed grounds for opposition that he feels ownership over the content he added previously. #2 is a brand new editor... no idea where he came from, but his ability to judge wikiediquette hasn't exactly been established. #3 hasn't said anything to me, ever. #4 is you.

If you're really, legitimately concerned about my editing style, you should know that I whole heartedly welcome constructive feedback (as publically evidenced by the times I've received it on my talk page), and if an uninvolved editor (or even one who doesn't simply disagree with me on a content dispute) swings by to tell me I'm editing improperly, I'll take that to heart. But as it stands now, all this "jump on Jess" attitude is simply out of place and tiring. Can we please move on to discussing the actual edits, and stop this middle-school bickering? Seriously, this whole thing is absurd.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, in order to avoid confusion between the references that support Charles Bradlaugh being a militant atheist and the references that support him being the "first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization," I have reworded the sentence so it contains two separate clauses and used the appropriate references for each statement. Both of these clauses are now verifiable by the appropriate reliable sources. I hope this is satisfactory to you as well. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Late on the arrival, but... 1. In the lede: The references I restored covered the usage of the term in one of its common appearances and was legitimately restored. The use of "atheist fundamentalism" I may be willing to compromise on, but not the removal of the paragraph itself. 2. Under "Soviet Bloc": "Militant atheism was effectively the state religion of the Soviet Union" may be better served by adding "Harold Joseph Berman says" or something like that, but your edit removed all mention of persecution of Christians in the USSR, leaving the link under "further reading" immediately above, which you maintained, rather out in the cold and looking like an appropriate place to trim for WP:SYNTH. 3. "Politics"/"History": I saw no reason that this text should be removed. 4. "New Atheism": Again, I am willing to concede "atheist fundamentalist" need not be included in this article and the Ian Hutchinson quote is in discussion already. However, what of the rest of the references in this section, or the criticism section? Has concensus been reached about all those that I've missed? Please show me where. Turnsalso (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections. You said you "legitimately restored" references to "atheist fundamentalism", then you said you're willing to compromise on it being removed, then you said that you aren't willing to compromise on the paragraph staying. Later, you say "atheist fundamentalist need not be included in the article". What? Even bypassing that confusion, most of your objections address content I didn't remove. I did not remove any paragraph in the lead, nor did I remove "all mention of persecution of Christians in the USSR". Please check my edits again: Here's the diff of your revert. Above, it was suggested you make a section for each edit you contested. Please do that, so I'm clear on what you're objecting to and why.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a small clarification, I was not singling out any individual user - judgment is applied equally on all fronts. Simply put: don't make large-scale changes without consensus, don't revert others without good, unbiased reason (vandalism, BLP violations, etc). m.o.p 20:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@All, It's been days, and I still have not seen any reasonable objections to the bulk of my edits, and instead of discussion, I'm seeing movement on the article. As such, I'm going to very carefully introduce those edits which haven't received criticism (or are supported by consensus) into the article one by one. I may also make a few novel changes in the process, also in individual edits with clear edit summaries (like I did the first time). If anyone has an objection to an edit I've made, please post a clear objection to it on the talk page, and if you revert, do it individually. This behavior of reverting wholesale without discussion for ambiguous reasons is unconstructive. @Turnsalso, for the time being, I'm leaving out the edits I'm guessing you object to (though I'm only guessing, since your reply to me yesterday was unclear). Please still go through my edits you've reverted and give me clear reasons why you object to each, so that we can have a proper discussion. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Before doing so, I would like to discuss with you the edits which you would like to make. If they include the removal of references as I detailed above, I object to them. Please point to edit summaries that delineate exactly which edits you would like to make. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in: I appreciate everyone's steps forward. The situation seems to be taking a turn for the positive; let's keep the discussion and consensus going. Good job, guys. m.o.p 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued reversion without discussion

I'm seeing a lot of reversion without discussion here - please note that, if you disagree with an addition, communicate your disapproval. Reverting solves nothing. If this continues, I'll be protecting the page until some sort of compromise/agreement has been made. m.o.p 23:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, this is not free leave for people to rush the article and try to change as much as possible before it's locked, nor is it an invitation to disregard other opinions. I still expect people to attempt to find a consensus. Just stop reverting each other. m.o.p 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if you were including me — but I did revert a change. I did so because the cited work was a novel. From its description at Amazon: "The New Atheist Novel is the first study of a major new genre of contemporary fiction". Certainly that isn't a WP:RS — seems pretty clear–cut so I don't know if that sort of thing needs to be discussed first… Mojoworker (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Additions that are blatantly against policy - as in, citations from Amazon pages being used to information - can be removed, yes. m.o.p 14:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Mojoworker and User:Master of Puppets, the citation was not from an Amazon page but was from a book which discussed concepts integral to the New Atheism movement. Perhaps you could look and see if you feel it is appropriate? Please click here to see my edit and the source + quotation that I used. I would appreciate it. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: The reference I removed was indeed a reference to the actual book, not Amazon, and I didn't intend to imply otherwise. However the book cited is a novel and is a fictional work. I just looked and I didn't see anything in WP:RS that explicitly addresses citing works of fiction, but it seems intuitively obvious that fiction wouldn't be a reliable source. But hey, I've been wrong before… Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify in case anybody is unsure - the article is still under observation and is still regarded as disputed. Though we've calmed down a bit over the last few days, let's keep discussing changes here until we can arrive at a suitable compromise. Keep up the good work! m.o.p 10:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to replace introduction of article

I propose the introductory paragraphs of the article be struck and replaced with —

Militant atheism is terminology applied predominantly to Marxist Leninist appropriation of atheism as a socialist ideological weapon against competing ideologies, but also to any proponent of atheism as cause for or against ends other than atheism.

The existing wording of the article supports no other summary. The assertions in the very first sentence are not a summary of what follows, suggesting an attempt at pre-empting what is known and can be evidenced about militant atheism.

The reference to Baggini is clearly prefaced by him with an acknowledgement that it is a personal interpretation, not a scholarly and verified theory or accepted norm.

The Rahner citation is inaccessible to me as a matter of IP blocking. Any reference to him as anything other than a theologian is equally elusive, which makes him a partisan in the atheism/faith divide. Please cite verbatim passages to prove me wrong.

Zuckerman is talking about Marxism Leninism.

Fenggang Yang is commenting on Chinese communist manifestations of atheist militancy, ergo Marxism Leninism departures again.

Any assertion that countering assumptions made by belief systems predicated on deism is equivalent to militant atheism logically implies that any stated atheism is equivalent to militancy. This is plainly absurd.

Please, no discussion without suggestions for alternatives to support existing or alternative wording in the article.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Well put Mr. Strempel. Here are some alternate links for the current citations. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This summary doesn't reflect the most important points of the article, e.g. it says nothing about New atheism. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is becoming pedantic, Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Exchange the word socialist with capitalist and you have everyone from Anton LaVey to Ayn Rand. This appears to again to deny the whole position defined by the Eastern Orthodox church... Again..

""-- 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." [22]

LoveMonkey (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. You're saying "if you change some of the words, it applies to more people". How is that relevant? No one proposed that we change 'socialist' to 'capitalist'. How does the Eastern Orthodox church have anything to do with our definition of militant atheism?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment "Militant atheism is terminology applied predominantly to Marxist Leninist appropriation of atheism as a socialist ideological weapon against competing ideologies,"

That is to imply that militant atheists are of a Marxist Leninist socialist idealogy.

Ayn Rand has been called a militant atheist by more than just one source. [23], [24]. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support better wording than our current lead. However, I would suggest changing the second bit to be more in-line with sources. We don't currently have any which use such a broad definition. I think this is an acceptable improvement, but the second part is not ideal. I don't have a new proposal off-hand, but could probably come up with one if you need.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support the first part of the sentence, but preferably remove the word "socialism" so that the wielder of the "ideological weapon" becomes Marxist-Leninism instead.

As for New Atheism, I think the article should mention that the term has indeed been applied to the New Atheism movement, then link to the New Atheism page and let that page speak for itself. All the material on this page that criticizes the New Atheist movement I would be happy to see moved over to that article under a section called "criticism of the New Atheist movement" (which the current article lacks btw). That way we actually have a proper, tight definition of militant atheism to work with in this article, while also avoiding a content fork for criticism of the New Atheism movement.

Covering the New Atheism movement here pushes the POV that they are militant (i.e. extremists)... calling them militant on the New Atheism page, however, states that they have been called militant by sources XYZ.

Obhave (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The introductory paragraph is fine the way it is, summarizing the many uses of the term concisely. Furthermore, many readers have heard the term applied to the New Atheist movement exclusively. A link to the article on New Atheism in this one would be beneficial, in conjunction with a condensed reason why their position has led some to apply the term "militant" to them. Finally, covering an application of the term to that movement does not push the POV that they are so (at least not merely by stating "X has been called Y" like this one does), especially when the coverage includes rebuttals by individuals involved. Turnsalso (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Turnsalso's reasoning here.ClassArm (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources relating militant atheism with the New Atheism movement?

The terms militant atheist and atheist fundamentalist, have been used to criticize the New Atheism movement.

None of these sources say that the terms are used to criticize the New Atheism movement. (and when did atheist fundamentalist and militant atheist become synonymous?)
Do we have any reliable sources that state a relationship between militant atheism and the New Atheism movement exists? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are 12 here: Militant_atheism#New_Atheism. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is actually implied in every one of those statements that the term is used in a manner that is critical of those that it defines. However, I agree that the sources do not say this outright.Griswaldo (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not have sources for "atheist fundamentalist" being a synonym, and we have consensus in Dumping quotes... and Atheist fundamentalism to remove the term per WP:SYNTH. But, my attempts to act on that consensus were reverted without discussion. It's also worth noting that it was repeatedly reverted without discussion even 2 weeks ago when those discussions were taking place, as noted in both sections by Dannyno. As for sourcing, the first and third sources don't talk about "militant atheism", and the second rejects the term. All 3 need to go. The 2nd one can go into the "criticism of the term" section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As another editor stated "Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article." - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we request formal mediation

There have been repeated (unannounced) attempts to remove the NPOV dispute tag. Yes. The tag that says: "please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"...

We have known for a long time that there are some pretty unscrupulous people working on this article... but I never would have thought that experienced Wikipedians would stoop to such disregard for policy, despite ideological differences. Therefor, it seems that our only real option is to request formal mediation (the next step in dispute resolution). What do the rest of you say?

Regarding the diffs... there were two 12 surreptitious attempts by user: Anupam and the third one 3 was by user: Turnsalso, who I suspect is a sock puppet. Does anyone know how the sock puppet investigation/reporting procedure works?

Obhave (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Avoid making accusations of sock-puppetry unless you have substantial evidence and, if you do, approach me through different channels.

As for the page itself, things are under control. They're not perfect, but some progress is being made. I've already ensured that no more reversions or unwarranted removals will be made. m.o.p 14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit was made as a revert to a previous form which had not only been found to pass NPOV at the time, but also restored unexplained excisions from the article by User:Mann Jess. I say this not to attempt to counter what User:Master of Puppets said, but instead to speak up against accusations of sock puppetry. I will admit that I may have gone too far in removing the NPOV tag, however. Turnsalso (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@Turnsalso You reverted my edits because they were "undiscussed". I've tried discussing them with you above, but you have not replied. Can you please participate in that discussion? Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Epistle of hope

Oh dear. So much impulse to denounce and so little rationality.

Let’s start with Marxism Leninism. It is an ideology based every bit as much on faith as any religion. If it demands that all the faithful attack God, then that’s what they’ll do. That does not make it atheist. Atheism requires an individual to make a value judgement about a proposition. Marxism Leninism demands only obedience without thought. In that way it is pretty similar to a fundamentalist Christian or Islamic religion.

Now let’s move on to this article. The introductory paragraph should summarise the body of the article, not attempt to define something never mentioned again, nor should it try to read the mind of every conspiracy theorist on the planet.

If you guys are happy to traduce the topic into some cheap evangelist rhetoric, fine. But don’t then attempt to sell this horseshit as toffee apples. Call it what it is. At the moment it is little more than an attack on various derivatives of Marxism Leninism.

In five days I will return with my word razor to excise from this article every assertion that isn’t backed by a credible citation. Then I will look up all the remaining references to cull the ones that don’t say what they are made to say here. You have until then to ensure your favourite denunciation actually holds water.

In the meantime, why don’t you denounce each other some more the way Nathaniel Hawthorne always knew you would.

Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try to work constructively on this article but I suggest that you look at the "controversial" tag at the top of this page and reflect on it. You are welcome to your opinions. I tend to disagree with your assessment and would argue that militant atheism can manifest itself in many forms. Regardless, if you wish to make any major changes to the article, they should first be discussed. This will prevent edit warring here, which is discouraged. Any reference in this article as it stands is supported with a full length quote from the original source in order to ensure venerability. As for the introduction, it seems that your version is being discussed as we speak. I think we should allow more users to comment there and then make a decision about it. I will add my comments there in the near future. Also, your assertion that this is somehow an attack article was submitted and swiftly declined by an administrator. I would encourage you to assume good faith about others' edits and adapt a collaborative spirit. Thanks for your understanding! With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 21:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, don't forget extra blades :) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely not recommend excising everything you don't see fit. I can guarantee you'll anger every other editor. This topic is already contested on multiple fronts - reformatting it as a one-man-army will only make things worse. I understand that we have policies such as WP:BOLD, but those aren't free leave to swoop down into the middle of a disputed page and have your way with it. If anything, participate in the discussions above or propose a draft of the page written in your userspace (for example, User:Peterstrempel/Milath). Your cooperation is much-appreciated. m.o.p 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been significant discussion of a disagreement between mop and myself about this issue on my talk page which I think is only fair to draw to the attention of interested/concerned parties. I am still resolved to excise from the militant atheism article all unverified assertions, and to start on that endeavour tomorrow. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter you appear to be harboring a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is unwarranted. We are all here to improve the article. Note that I oppose your brand of unilateral editing. I recommend that you discuss your changes with us before you make substantial edits, as requested by Anupam, mop and now myself. – Lionel ^(talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I refer you all to Mojoworker's comments on my talk page (about the same issue in relation to another discussion), specifically the elegant way he illustrated the point that there is no avoiding the meaning of WP:Verifiability as a 'policy' or the meaning of WP:CONLIMITED —

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Ergo, this limited community of editors cannot decide to overrule a wider Wikipedia policy that Encylopaedic content must be verifiable, or that discussion of the article should not not include general discussion of the topic (as in discussing unverified content). If anyone here wants to challenge Wikipedia policies as they stand, pick the appropriate forum, which is not here.

Regards. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis

Why is this piece of blatant synthesis in the entry at all, not to mention the lead?

• Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe leaders of the New Atheism movement,[16] 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."[17][18][19]

The second half of that sentence uses three sources, none of which mention "militant atheism." What gives?Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence isn't about militant atheism though, it's about the New Atheism movement and the beliefs of its proponents. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is not what the article is about. It is synthesis to suggest that those who believe that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises," are called "militant atheists." This needs to be removed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But that's not what is claimed in the article. What is claimed is that the term has been used to describe leaders of New Atheism, which is true. Surely this doesn't mean that New Atheist proponents are militant atheists, but it is a fact that they have been pejoratively called militant atheists. If you want to make it clearer in the article to avoid misunderstandings, go ahead, but I don't see why it should go away completely. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That does not explain what the description of New Atheism, sourced to three sources that say nothing about the connection to "militant atheism" is doing in the lead, or in the entry at all. If you want to describe the "New Atheism" that has been called "militant atheism" then stick to the descriptions of those who label it as such and attribute them properly. Once again, this remains a WP:SYNTH violation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree, and have pointed this out above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Quispiam (Anton Nordenfur) on this issue. It is evident that the term has been used to describe leaders of the New Atheism movement. The article titled "Militant atheism, pragmatism, and the God-shaped hole" from the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion states: "Militant atheists such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens think that now is the time to finally be done talking about God." I have just added a new reference to the article from Baker Academic which uses militant atheists as an appositive for "proponents of the new atheism" as indicated by the following quote, which is listed under the heading Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism":

Eco-evangelism must also "the new atheism" being preached in the name of "nature." Science and religion, according to the proponents of the new atheism, are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins's Foundation for Reason and Science is out to debunk religion, which Dawkins calls "the God delusion." His book of the same title is a best seller, and Dawkins is not alone. Sam Harris, Daniel C. Den-nett, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens are only a handful of militant atheists who are convinced Christianity is toxic to human life.

This quote should dispel any doubts about the assertion in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sources support labeling Dawkins, Harris, Stenger and Hitchens as "militant atheists", but do not in any way support a connection to New Atheism, which is why it is synthesis.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo: The article is basically about any person or group that has been labeled with "militant atheism". Sources need only contain the appropriate words (regardless of context i.e. Lonely Planet travel guides are acceptable) and should always be quoted in the citation. Thus the opinions of the New Atheists (and by extension atheists in general i.e. Kathy Gifford), given as part of the free public discourse, can be associated with the murderous brutality of Militant atheism as practiced by totalitarian governments. This is, of course, ludicrous. Obviously, some editors don't see it that way. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess, I have bolded the relevant terms in the above quote and have added the previous sentence in order that you might see the connection. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is a non-notable Associate Professor of Evangelism a reliable source for a connection between Militant atheism and the New Atheists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtifexMayhem (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, obviously many other editors --- myself included --- see it exactly that way.Jkhwiki (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam: The argument is basically about any statement that has been labeled with "WP:SYN\synthesis". Explanations need only contain the appropriate words (regardless of context i.e. "has been pejoratively applied" equals an assertion that X is Y) and should always be stated explicitly. Thus the opinions of the anti-atheists (and by extension pro-article editors in general i.e. lovemonkey), given as part of an articulated discussion, can be associated with the impenetrable nonsense of weak reasons as practiced in WP:EW\edit wars. This is, of course, ludicrous. Obviously, some editors don't see it that way. Turnsalso (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)