Talk:Militant atheism

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.[1] And then uses it. As does Phil Zuckerman [2] [3] 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? [4] 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. [5],[6] 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 [7]. --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."[8] 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 [9] 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)

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)

@Turnsalso I see you've contributed again to the page, but have still not come back to give any solid reasons for your revert days ago. Can I take this to mean that you no longer oppose the content in my edits? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:33, 20 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)

I've added a page notice to the main body of the article with the intent of stopping reversions. In case anybody is curious; I haven't locked the page down completely because edit-warring has (mostly) stopped and discussion is going strong. I'm also confident in the ability of grown men and women to compromise and discuss without reducing themselves to a bickering mess. Keep it up, m.o.p 00:39, 22 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." [10]

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. [11], [12]. 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 "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 edit wars. This is, of course, ludicrous. Obviously, some editors don't see it that way. Turnsalso (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, are you saying that just because the source uses the words "New Atheism" and "militant atheism" in the same article, that means we can label one by name of the other? The article labels Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger as militant atheists, not New Atheism. Therefore, drawing the connection we have is inappropriate. Artifex is right that a non-notable professor of evangelism is a dubious source for this content, but that's a separate issue, and shouldn't really even be a factor in light of WP:SYNTH.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying at all. As I mentioned earlier, the heading in which that quote fell under was called "Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism" and moreover, that quote uses the terms militant atheism and new atheism synonymously. I would request that you read the quote again so you can see this for yourself. Furthermore, the reference meets WP:RS and Elaine Heath, with her Ph.D. in Systematic Theology is qualified to speak on this issue, though you may not like to think so. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the passage. The terms are not being used synonymously. They are two different terms used in two different places. Nowhere are the two equated. Again, the reliability of this "Christian Outreach" book is a separate issue. The issue we're discussing is that the source doesn't back up your assertion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't able to recognize the synonymous usage. It's pretty evident from the source, and moreover, other editors here have also seen it as well. According to The Presence of a Hidden God (Random House Publishers):

Today there has arisen a virulent form of atheism. Militant atheists are on the march. One of them, Sam Harris, wrote a book entitled Letter to a Christian Nation, especially appealing to us to become like the failed Soviet Union. (He doesn't actually word it that way, but that's the effect of his message.) His book and a handful of other virulent anti-Christian creeds have made it onto the New York Times bestseller list.

I would like to ask you a question now. What is this "virulent form of atheism" that has "arisen" "today"? --Anupam^Talk 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Since the source doesn't say, it would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for me to speculate. Do you see the problem now? What you've done is taken one source which says "militant atheism is characterized by X" and another source which says "New Atheism is characterized by x", and combined them to be "New Atheism is synonymous with militant atheism". That is nearly a word-for-word rephrasing of WP:SYNTH. Can you understand why, when you have to ask me what an author is referring to because he doesn't say explicitly, we have a problem?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that and that's why I never inserted that source in the article. Both of us, however, do know the answer to that question. The source I did insert, titled "The Mystic Way of Evangelism" (Baker Academic Press) however, did equate new atheism to militant atheism as evidenced by the following quotation which was listed under the heading "Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism":

Eco-evangelism must also engage "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.

Another reference titled "God & Government" (Zondervan) states:

But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknoledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."

Yet, even another reference makes the equivalence of the two terms. In "Religion and The State" (Infobase Publishing) the author, when reviewing an article writes:

Aronson, Ronald. "The New Atheists." The Nation 286 (6/7/07). Available online. URL: www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson. This article provides an extensive explanation and analysis of the views of today's most militant atheists in the United States and Europe. While the author is sympathetic to the free choice to choose nonbelief, or atheism, he questions the vehemance of the new atheism and wonders to what extent it has itself become a type of rigid, fundamentalist religion.

I hope this helps you understand the issue, in proper context. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, none of those equate the two terms. You are still synthesizing sources. I don't know how to explain it better than I already did. You cannot say "militant atheism is characterized by X", and then apply the label yourself to other descriptions of "X" you find. If the sources we have do not themselves call New Atheism "militant atheism", then we cannot either. Furthermore, if you understand that a source isn't sufficient to back up a claim (and therefore have purposefully left it out of the article), what makes you think it's appropriate to present here to demonstrate your claim? I'm not interested in wading through a bunch of content you already know is insufficient. Bring me one, good source which is explicit about the label and is the proper weight for us to use.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading this discussion thread, I agree with Mann_jess that associating 'Militant atheism' with 'New Atheism' is synthesis and it's inaccurate to associate them. Abhishikt (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we have consensus here now? Abhishikt (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see synth I see a wide variety of valid sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Abhishikt I'd say we do. It's been over a week, and no one has addressed Griswaldo's original SYNTH concern by presenting a source which draws a connection between New Atheism and "militant atheism". I'd say this can safely be removed. I'll take care of what I can now - feel free to hop in if I miss anything.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with those describing the content as SYNTH. A reasonable person reading 'Eco-Evangelism, Zondervam or Aronson would conclude that MA and NA are being used synonymously. There are 4 editors who have expressed valid reasoning why they do not find SYNTH: there is no consensus to exclude. 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Lionelt's assessment. As a result, there never was a consensus to remove the information. The sources provided delineate synonymous usage of the terms "militant atheism" and "new atheism." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Word Razor

My application of the word razor can be seen at this subpage.

Please do not edit that page or start a discussion there. Keep it here so all can see and assess. I propose to make the changes detailed on that page in seven days. Strikethroughs will be removed if credible citations are found, but should be removed only after discussion here. Changes made to the subpage without discussion or agrement here will be reverted by me. If an admin is watching, perhaps you can lock editing of that subpage for the time being.

While I have not proposed cuts to the introductory paragraphs, I think they will need to be completely re-written to move arguments made only there into the main body of the article (in line with WP policy), and to include wording that reflects the generally critical slant of the article, and the heavy emphasis on evidencing criticism of militant atheism with a history of Soviet-style Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. But that's a debate to be conducted when the cuts are made.

My explanatory notes are set out below. It took me a great deal of time to sift through all references, so I'd appreciate comments that refrain from re-arguing controversies instead of focusing only on Wikipedia referencing policy.

Soviet bloc

'Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules.[30][37]' is an inappropriate attribution to the sentence preceding it. The cited references for severe punishment do not refer to indoctrinating schoolchildren or university students, and that conclusion is presented here as made by Wikipedia, which is inappropriate.

'By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries.[38]' The cited source does not support the stricken assertion, which is in fact a link to an unassessed Wikipedia article criticised for being excessively based on a single source.

'several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction'. The word extinction is never mentioned in the cited references. Use destruction or eradication instead, which are mentioned. Have added my suggestion of destruction in square brackets.

'no more than three to four hundred clerical positions left.[41]' The stricken wording is not supported by the source, which talks about clergy, not clerical positions.

'(and forced re-education through torture at various prisons).[46][47][48][49]' While the claim that torture and re-education in various prisons may be true, the sources do not refer to it as linked specifically to religion. Moreover, source 48 is not a credible source, disavowed even by the university server it is hosted on as personal opinion, and not clearly attributed to an author. Also, the clumsy concatenation of that source to a separate one is about human rights in general being violated, not specific to torture and brainwashing of Christians. Finally, that source is subject to link rot, being a personal page that may disdappear without notice.

'along with the Tatar Union of the Militant Godless,[58]' The cited source does not support any association of the TUMG with the League of Militant Atheists, or collaborative 'anti-religious propaganda at the grassroots level'. Nor do sources 59 through 61.

'In 1941, soon after the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the newspaper closed, and in 1947 the society itself folded, the task of the anti-religious propaganda being transferred to the more neutrally named All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge (?????????? ???????? ?? ??????????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ??????).[62]' The issue of encyclopaedias being cited as a Wikipedia source is complex and could be interpreted to mean they should not be used to evidence controversial assertions (see Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Encyclopedias, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#non_Wikipedia_Dictionaries_and_Encyclopedias. However, I prefer to leave that issue aside as a separate debate, and have not stricken previous encyclopaedic references. This passage is an exception because of the difficulty verifying the credibility and accuracy of an unattributed translation of an unusual source.

'The society in its turn was in 1963 renamed to simply Obshchestvo "Znanie" (???????? "??????", The All-Union Knowledge Society).[64]' Faces the same problem as the previous citation.

'Since 1959 the society has published a monthly journal called Nauka i Religya (Science and Religion) which, during the Soviet era, described itself as "a fighting organ of militant atheism", rejecting the view that religion would disappear of itself.' This passge appears not be sourced from anywhere. However, the quoted reference [65] implies that it may be able to be used as a source for similar assertions. I would be indebted to the editor who intrduced this source to extend the quote given if that is the case. That would make more sense than leaving an orphaned mention at the end of the paragraph.

'In general, scientists and party philosophers in the Soviet Union worked to establish a view of science acceptable to Marxist-Leninist philosophy.[66]' This assertion is not backed by the cited passage.

'himself a leader in the Atheist 3.0 movement' Says who? The link to atheism 3.0 is a link to an article considered for deletion. Reference 69 does not refer to Sheiman as a leader of Atheism 3.0, and there is no cited evidence for the existence of such a group or its leadership.

French Revolution

'who both advocated the dechristianisation of France.[9]' The cited reference does not support the asserted target for dechritianisation.

New Atheism

The heading of this section to be removed because there is no credible reference presented to evidence the existence of a new atheism movement, with all citations referring to authors as militant atheists, ergo, the previous section 'Today' should just continue.

'The term militant atheist, has been used to criticize the New Atheism movement. What is the source for this assertion? A link to another enclyclopaedia article is subject to linkrot if that article changes, and not a credible reference for a controversial assertion that application of a media-speak label to authors and books refers to a tangible thing such as a movement. Cite evidence for membership, leaders, policies and activities.

'Michael Ruse,[121][122] and Bruce Sheiman , a leader[citation needed] in the Atheism 3.0 movement[citation needed], who stated that ...' Ruse is not a coauthor of the statements attributed to him and Sheiman, of which Sheiman is the sole author, and no reference exists to label Sheiman a leader of anything.

'Other articles in the popular media make reference to the leaders representing the New Atheism movement as militant atheists.[125][126][127]' The articles cited do not refer to New Atheism or its supposed leaders at all. No other reference is given to support a claim that any authors are leaders of any movement called New Atheism.

This entire section formerly called New Atheism is top heavy with quotes from Fiala, and the main arguments that are supported by references could be significantly summarised (shortened) to eliminate the undue suggestion there is something new or different about Fiala and co's critique of militant atheism compared to preceding criticisms.

Media

This entire section could easily be rolled into the previous one and significantly shortened because the arguments are repetitive, with the exception of Dawkins' rebuttal. I won't strike it here, but I suspect there's a good case for NPOV violation by way of loading this article with criticism of militant atheism and giving too little prominence to rebuttals.

Criticism

Ditto. Where has this article so far not been critical of militant atheism?

END OF NOTES

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Peterstrempel, thanks for checking the article to see if the content met WP:V and WP:RS. This will be the crucial step of ending the current dispute on the talk page. I really appreciate your efforts in reviewing the article. I agree with many of your corrections in your revision and for the ones I do not, in the near future, I will be posting comments on those. Thanks again, Anupam^Talk 21:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Peterstrempel, I would like to take your editorial suggestions one by one. In your first statement, you suggested that the sentence 'Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules' be excised from the article. I understand your reasoning. However, rather than simply removing the statement, let us consider moving it so that it is satisfactory. I suggest moving it after the sentence 'Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services' where it fits appropriately. What do you think? I look forward to your comments. Thanks again for taking the time to make the revisions. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

LEDE written by PeaceLoveHarmony

I think the opening paragraph written by PeaceLoveHarmony, is very accurate and from NPOV. We should use it. I appreciate PeaceLoveHarmony for this.

“ Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term used to characterize atheism which is hostile towards religion. The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging, and has been applied both to totalitarian governments that have enforced atheism through violent means and non-violent individuals who express views that are hostile toward religious beliefs and/or seek to reduce the influence of religion in society through litigation ”

If anyone is not satisfied with this, please state what is wrong in this and how it should be corrected? Abhishikt (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This paragraph does not meet WP:V as there are no reliable sources that support the opinion that it is a controversial and pejorative term. The current introduction, on the other hand, is supported by several scholarly sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The current opening sentence is sourced to six references. I don't see how the proposed change to the lede is an improvement. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Anupam, Lionel, There is a reason for POV tag on this article and long threads of discussions for changing LEDE and overall article. Pretending/re-stating that 'current LEDE/article is fine' is completely unconstructive and hampering improvement of this article. Abhishikt (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well this response to my question is well, nonresponsive. You may have a misunderstanding of the way things work around here. A POV tag does not mean "c'mon everyone let's change the article". It means an editor has expressed a concern: nothing more. In order to change the article he is required to put forth an argument. If the argument is not persuasive, then guess what: the change is not adopted. And eventually the tag will be removed in due course. Right now we're at the point where the argument is not persuasive. I strongly suggest you stop violating WP:NPA by accusing editors of bring "unconstructive" and "hampering" merely because your position does not have consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - pretty good, and much better than the present lead, which pushes the article firmly down the course of "let's grab as many nasty comments as possible about athiesm, just so long as they have used the adjective militant, however fleetingly, and construct an attack page by means of synthesis." But the lead does also need to acknowledge that the label "militant atheism" is not just a pejorative term but in some contexts (especially marxism/leninism) a self-applied badge and something closer to a technical term with a real meaning. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This is a much better description of the term. I'm not very concerned about the supposed lack of RS's for noting that the term is both controversial and pejorative, as both of these facts are supported by reliably sourced text within the article itself. While it doesn't seem quite so bad as Snalwibma is implying, the current lead does indeed seem to be biased against atheists, in the same way that the term "militant atheist" itself is often used-- the inclusion of the hatred quote is a particularly poor choice. A more neutral intro like this one is a good solution. siafu (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It is not true that there are no reliable sources that support the statement that it is a controversial and pejorative term. There are several sources in the article that back this up. Please note that the current sources in the lede are all individual opinions about the meaning of the term. It is also important to note that these opinions are indeed as broad-ranging as is described. So "controversial", "pejorative", and "broad-ranging" are all well justified by the existing sources in the article. Is it necessary to add these references to the lede? That certainly would be fine with me. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:PeaceLoveHarmony! Thanks for your efforts in trying to improve the article. In my humble opinion, your version violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR since you are using different sources and drawing your own conclusions from them. We need a source that specifically states that the term is controversial and pejorative. Otherwise, this advocates a certain point of view. I hope you see my point. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

He provided 3 sources. The first and third are perfectly explicit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You actually cannot see the sources. I will enable the references section here now. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is a highly improved description, and much better supported by the sources. The sourcing we have for the current lead are, indeed, either personal opinions regarding the topic, or dramatically limited in scope to not encompass the entire article. In fact, the latter problem is one of the reasons many of us have pushed for deletion. This structuring, instead, makes it clear that there are two different uses of the term, which properly contextualizes all the content to follow.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Adding this entry for formality, it's obvious that I fully support this wording for LEDE of this article. This defines the term 'Militant Atheism' with sufficient clarify, covering the historical as well the current usage of the term from NPOV. Abhishikt (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see how "pejorative" is sourced anywhere in the entry. "Controversial" is clearly sourced, but pejorative is not. can someone point it out if I'm just missing something.Griswaldo (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Griwaldo's assessment, which resonates with my previous comment. I however did not find a source for "controversial" either. Could you please point it out to me? Moreover, the term "pejorative" reflects only one usage of the term and is not appropriate to describe the term "militant atheism" in general. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, we have Christianity Unveiled by Baron D'Holbach (page xix - xx). We also have PLH's first and third ref, which all define the term as a disparaging/derogatory slur. I believe there are more, but those should be sufficient.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

According to an Oxford University Press published academic book, Baron d'Holbach, himself, is considered a militant atheist so his text reflects his point of view. Similarly, Catherine Fahringer and David A. Niose are both activists and their writing reflects advocacy. None of the philosophers, both atheists and theists, have classified militant atheism in the same fashion. Their classification, on the other hand, is reflected in the current introduction of the article. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

1) The text is not authored by Baron d'Holbach. It is by David Holohan. Did you read it? 2) You are apparently rejecting sources on the basis that the authors have expressed opinions about the topic. We don't do that. That's also not what WP:Advocacy addresses. Did you read that either?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source doesn't even meet WP:RS since it's published by a vanity press. Did you check that? Moreover, the opinions of self-described activists carry undue weight when compared to renowned philosophers and sociologists who have defined the term. --Anupam^Talk 05:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are WP:RS for this. One of the most notable philosophers A.C.Grayling agrees with it. Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy. Abhishikt (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Christianity Unveiled was published by a vanity press, which places it under WP:SPS. SPS's are considered reliable to present the opinions of their authors, but we cannot use it as a secondary source. We have other secondary sources which additionally support the statement, however, some of which have already been listed. We do not reject reliable sources simply because their author is described as an activist somewhere, nor because the author is labelled by the term we wish to describe. Indeed, doing so would be improper, and lead to articles based entirely on critiques of concepts lodged by unaffiliated laymen.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reason. Consensus is not a vote, and a vote without a stated reason can't be considered.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This lede gives undue emphasis on the contemporary usage. The term was in fact used in a nearly official fashion to refer to the USSR's policies, which covers a significant portion of the article. This is not reflective of the article's content (misleading, one may say) and is unsourced. Saying "militant atheism" is a controversial pejorative term when applied to movements like New Atheism would be more acceptable, and may even be an effective addition, but this lede otherwise weakens the article. Turnsalso (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support Better than the current but still way off base. Partly just poor wording. But good intention..

Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term used to characterize atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term used by some ... to characterize atheism which they contend is militantly hostile towards religion.

Reason: the way it is written looks like it grants that there is in fact a signficant form of militart atheism byt NPOV thinks maybe not maybe someone made up the term.

The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging, and has been applied both to totalitarian governments that have enforced atheism through violent means and non-violent individuals who express views that are hostile toward religious beliefs and/or seek to reduce the influence of religion in society through litigation - needs citation -can be misread to mean that "militant atheism" is a term that has been applied...this is an error of writing please fix it.

suggested fix

The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging, and has been applied both to the practices of totalitarian governments and to the activities of non-violent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• oppose as I don't see a source for the comment "Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term in existence" being valid because the League of Militant atheists existed and it appears to me that some people are either ignorant of the group or in denial. The source does not appear to take that into account.. As the term in that historical context applied to a group whom by their own self designation acknowledged that their atheist doctrine was what motivated their behavior in the name they used to describe themselves. In order for what people here are suggesting to be valid the League of Militant atheists would have not been labeled by other atheists as people whom don't represent their "atheism". In other words we have a designation of more than one kind of atheism from within atheists circles. Not a label placed on atheists by non atheist as the comment people here are wanting to add implies. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The current lede is sourced to 6 sources and is reflective of the entire article. The proposed lede is undue, POV rhetoric by those who are antagonistic to the very term itself! Note I asked above why the proposal was better and no explanation was offered. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, Didn't you read my comment? There is a reason for POV tag on this article and long threads of discussions for changing LEDE and overall article. If you don't know that reason, then you better read all those threads. BTW I had asked "If anyone is not satisfied with this, please state what is wrong in this and how it should be corrected?" and you still haven't given any improvement suggestion. Abhishikt (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All a POV tag means is that at least 1 editor has a concern and there is a discussion on the talk page. It is not a mandate to change even a single word in the article. And if a consensus does not emerge then it won't change. I am not required to provide a suggestion or anything anything else if I feel that the current version is NPOV and within policy. It is your obligation to present an argument to persuade me to adopt your proposal. And right about now the arguments presented have not been persuasive. That said... I feel that this version is an improvement [13]. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I obviously support this lede, as it clearly and sufficiently covers the two different usage of the term in NPOV. It is sourced by multiple WP:RS.

Although I offer one suggestion instead of "controversial pejorative term", it can be "incorrect pejorative term" as per notable philosopher A. C. Grayling, which is well sourced with WP:RS. Abhishikt (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This additional comment is in response to those who have suggested that the words "controversial" and "pejorative" are not supported by reliable sources and that to use these words is to be committing "synthesis" and "original research". I believe this is an overly pedantic misinterpretation of the rules and that we should use some common sense. WP:COMMON.

Synthesis implies some type of logical syllogism, e.g. 1) A implies B. 2) B. implies C 3) therefore, A implies C.

This is NOT a syllogism: 1) A says X is a Y. 2) B says X is a Q. 3) A and B are saying different things about X.

The rules regarding synthesis and original research apply to the taking of two or more different ideas and combining them, via logical syllogism, to come up with a NEW idea. A simple statement that different sources have different opinions about the meaning of a term is NOT synthesis; it is simply a statement about the sources. If we applied the rule as you are suggesting, then one could not write that "X is a controversial issue" even though there were many differing opinions on X, unless one could find a reliable source that explicit stated "X is a controversial issue". I believe that it is NOT synthesis or original research to state that "Multiple reliable sources have wide disagreement about the meaning of the term 'militant atheism'". This is a true statement that is quite obvious from a cursory review of the current References section of the article. It is also NOT synthesis to say that "Some reliable sources view the term ‘militant atheism’ to be insulting and/or slanderous." (Grayling, for example.) Again, this is a simple obvious statement backed by the existing references. In the interest of conciseness, I simply suggest that these two obvious statements that are backed by the existing references be summarized using the words "controversial" and "pejorative". PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This additional comment is in response to those who oppose using the word "pejorative" to describe "militant atheism" because it has been used as a term of self-identification at times, e.g. by Marxist-Leninist activists. The fact, as backed up by current references, is that the term is considered a “slander” by Grayling, and is also referred to as an insult by other reliable sources. So it most definitely IS a pejorative, and this should be noted in the LEDE. Current usage is at least as important as historical usage, if not more so. I have no problem with a little bit of re-wording to indicate that it has also been used as a self-referring label in the past by totalitarian regimes, for example, but the current pejorative connotation should NOT be ignored in the lede. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I also oppose this proposal. The term "militant atheist" was not always used with pejorative intentions, and the text proposed here suggests that it has been always been used this way (and as already noted by other users, it was also used by the "League of Militant Atheists".) Also, the fact that sometimes it was used as a "pejorative" does not need to be stated in the first sentence of the lead (and the current introduction mentions anyway the recent pejorative use of the term). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad wording - this article is grossly POV

I am making my edits one by one so if anyone has a problem they can revert it without drama. Save the drama for your mama, please. No whine to admins no block dramas thanks. I will listen to feedback but the lousy grmmr grammatically speakin' does not help either side.

I am going for nuetrual gramm fixss but spling is not the issue.

Let's move Baggini material lower

No belong in lead.

"British philosopher Julian Baggini describes an atheistic active hostility to religion as militant and says hostility "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 belief." Hatred? Is that what the others say? Too strong to put in second sentence. It is just one isolated guys opine. Baggini is not typical and giving him the top space makes no sense whichever "side" you are on

I agree that "The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging." Why is this one guy getting to be the headliner? He is not typical of the view is he? Who put his quote on the top of the article? It does not belong there. IT DOESNT MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. nOboDy sHoUlD be hpppy with this article.

Hello! WP:LEDE states that the lede should contain a "summary of its most important aspects." I believe that we can move some of the philosophical discussion in the current introduction to a separate section titled "concepts," as is done in the article on existentialism. The current introduction would retain its current form, with the exception of the philosophical opinion, but will include a summary of this new "concepts" section. What do you and others think of this proposition? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Baggini's view seems to be his POV and clearly he is not notable to belong to LEDE. Second point is that there are much more notable philosophers, like A. C. Grayling whose explaination of this term outweigh Baggini's. Abhishikt (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I provisionally support this proposal in principle. As a reminder, this is not about "voting" which is a misconception which has led to miscarriages of process in this topic before. Concur that "Baggini's view seems to be his POV " per Abhishikt. Concur that "article on existentialism." is an appropriate model on basis that article is essentailly a matter of "philosophical opinion" per Anupam. My participation should be howerver be teken to suggest that this article is not itself a possible afd candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Devilishlyhandsome, thanks for your comments. I've mentioned this in the latest proposal here and have included your support in my proposal. You can see it below. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Support if Anupam's proposal (below) is adopted. The points made so far are well taken and this change will work perfectly with the new Intro. It's not perfect, but I think it's a compromise we all can live with. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph issues

The second paragraph launches a diatribe. Karl Marx hardly ever said one word about religion. He said it is the "opiate of the people but also the heart of a heartless world. " Marx - ists - that is another story. The article should IMHO make this distinction. Dawkins says that there is a myth that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. It was Aveling, not Marx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletions?

How about getting rid of the entire "see also" section. It is either OR or subtle POV. People can integrate their concerns into the text if they feel a link is relevant. Otherwise, we will have to fight over each link and then make sure it is balanced out. The link to the Russian S.o.G. an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party. - that is pure OR consistent with the criticism of Militant Atheism, advancing the agenda of the critics of militant atheism; the link to the atheism portal is not OR but it is POV so I will say also we should link to the religion portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition?

[14]  Done No objections, nor should there be any. This apt quote fits right in with the flow and merely expands the section without much "tilt". Feel free to add other quotes which are on point. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Research on early usesUsed 2002

In 2002, in the wake of post-911 concerns, Richard Dawkins drew laughs from an audience [15] with the term "militant atheism"; largely in response to his criticism of religion...took up the term and used it to defend the faith.

Yeah - too POV. But this is how it prob got started - Dawkins-bashers. So -was Bagini beofre or aftr.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope

Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). "Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion". University of California Press. Retrieved 16 July 2011. "The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).

So Stark & Finke used it before Dawkins. Point for the religionists. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Early-use-of-term research: another hit: used by Kohut in 1972

Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage H Kohut - Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1972 - pep-web.org ... The current materialistic rationalism in Western culture, on the other hand, while giving greater freedom to the enhancement of the self, tends to belittle, or (eg, in the sphere where a militant atheism holds sway) to forbid, the traditional forms of institutionalized relatedness to the ..

Important to note he did not capitalize and used the expression in passing as though he made it up, actually a separate adjective + nounDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This use by Kohut was NOT used in a manner suggesting anything other than use of an ADJECTIVE+NOUN formulation.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" is not hate

The lede should not highlight a distortion which tends to be read as equating atheism with hate. That is a current POV problem. If anyone defines MA it perhaps would be Dawkins.

[16])

the comment says "Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science"

WP should not feed POV propaganda it should let topics be defined by their proponents or by mainstream critics not by fringe extremists.

On the new contributor Devilishlyhandsome comments.. Lets play nice. Here your calling someone's contributions "POV" rubbish. [17] Your so new that you use time worn Wiki phrases like "POV". Please clarify if you are a single purpose account. As I show no other articles you have contributed to. Are you maybe a second account created by a regular already created user. Also could you sign your comments so that people can clearly attribute them to you. Thanks in Advanced. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit much to claim he's a sockpuppet, but if you have good grounds you could request a check. (Edit: It would seem from his inability to format correctly he could have just been a lurker) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't, look at the what the editor posted on my personal page.. [18] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

THis is a POV offensive, a personal attack, and a naked attempt at a personal attack on this user - ad hominen. Why don't you stick to the specifcs. Yes POV is POV is POV. It does not belong on wikipedia so, by definition, it goes into the Recycling Bin.

RE: use of the term "POV rubbish" - this is not a basis for a checkusr invetigation. See Merriam Webster[19] which defines "rubbish" as "nonsensical". To state that content is nonsensical is not an attack on a user and is not a basis for launching a vindictive personal investigation. "Rubbish" is also probably somewhat of a Britishism. " Don't attack the user. Stick to the issues. You have no basis to run a checn and even if you confirmed your "suspcions' of dark evil "Sock puppetry" you would simpy be engaged in WIkiiLaywering CYberbullying. THis user has not violated any rules so lay off. WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. ANd as for "single purpose" - if I can't bring sanity and levityh into this article I dont see why I should waste any of my time on any future engagement with wikipedia. It seems that a blatant POV ideological offensive from the Conservepedia crowd is gaining traction at WP. Shame on you. As for my religious friends, if I have to be subjected to this kind of harassment - threats of check investigation, etc. - I tell you what buddy, I am done with the Bible. Kaput, finished. I am going to discard my Bibles, stop reading them, and stop humoring my religious friends. Last night I spoke to a very devout fundametnatlist friend who has had a series of serious life threatenting hospitalizations and after doing all of this research on Dawkins, etc I tried to be kind and encourage him that his faith was easing his streess and helping him to stay healthy. If I get hassled or blocked or checkusr hassled in any way I am going to that guy and giving it to him straight that the stress reduction benefit he experiences is a pure placebo effect that would work as well if he worship the Great Spaghetti Monster and I will promote non-WP sites on the basis that WP admins fell for a religionist gambit. So lay off the personal attack and I will be kind and not disabuse these believers and keep my intellectual opinion on this topic here where it belongs, on WP. That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the religionsist wanna throw at me. Bumping me from WP, which is your obvious agenda, is the very least of my worries. So back off the personal attack.

In sum, I would rather get kicked off Wikipedia for the rest of my life than cave into this kind of intimidation tactic. Signed Devilishly Handsome

Hyperbole don't you think? Also Father John Whiteford is active on this page. After your comments on my personal page making whatever threats about getting various Orthodox clergy (i.e. Father Hopko) [20] to confront me I think that Father Whiteford will come to my defense. As so far he has made no complaints to me on my comments here. I think your breaking more and more Wiki policy by the minute. Here I'll make a list...

• . Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for this comment "THis is a POV offensive, a personal attack, and a naked attempt at a personal attack on this user - ad hominen. Why don't you stick to the specifc\s. Yes POV is POV is POV. It does not belong on wikipedia so, byu definition, it goes into the Recycling Bin. "
• .Now why is adding a sourced comment into the article POV rubbish.. Also that is a vio of WP:Assume Good Faith. And aren't you being anti-intelligentsia when you labeled there Harold J. Berman's comment [[21]] POV rubbish?
• And.. "To state that content is nonsensical is not an attack on a user and is not a basis for launching a vindictive personal investigation." Is assuming bad faith not WP:Assume Good Faith.
• And. "you would simpy be engaged in WIkiiLaywering CYberbullying. " No I have had checkuser ran on my accounts. Why so touchy about it?
• And. "if I can't bring sanity and levityh into this article I dont see why I should waste any of my time on any future engagement with wikipedia. It seems that a blatant POV ideological offensive from the Conservepedia crowd is gaining traction at WP. Shame on you." Your assuming again and assuming is not staying on issue. Don't ask what you are unwilling to do yourself.
• Also this one.. That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the religionsist wanna throw at me looks like a threat. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we all slow down a bit. Now, taken out of context, that looks bad and so I don't blame the admin that you went running to with your complaints one bit for very mildly pointing out to me that I was being put in this demonized position. And actually, your baiting had some effect and it was a poor choice of words on my part and to the extent you might,just possibly, really feel put upon, I do (again, directly) apologize. However, as you well know, the suggested action on my part was not any sort of illegal or unethical threat at all it was a lawful, ethical and appropriate outlining that actions have consequences and that if you engineer an injustice at Wikipedia while doing business as a representative of a particular denomination, that, even though you are operating under a cloak of anonymity, you would be held intellectually responsible and your denomination will be made aware of the suppression of free thought which had been conducted in their name. If this bothers you please consider a user page in which you do not purport to represent a denomination or a communion. Holding people responsible is an exercise in moral responsibility not the reverse, as you manage to present it, as you characterized it with the loaded term "threat" if you wish, just as we are under a "threat" of a speeding ticket if we race down the highway at 80 mph. So, yeah, slow down, you might get a ticket. And there is no want for people around here willing to make "threats" of checkuser, block, ban, etc. So let's save the drama for our mama and move on in this deconstruction.

Your citation speaks for itself when you cite Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack let's not all bore ourselves with anymore of this round of accusations.

The real substance of your allegation, once we stop playing word games with the word "threat" is this suggestion that I was implying that there was an attempt to get you personally in trouble with Father Thomas or someone. But that is ridiculous. (1) You are an anonymous user there is no way that could happen. (2) Since there is a threat of running check user on me, which would disclose where I work and who I am, I am more at risk than you ("The ...gentleman...doth protest too much. (3) the actually meaning of my statement is completely missed which is not that there would be any sanction within the church against you - I know enough about the ROC to know the odds of that happening are slim to none, what a laugh but simply that

• (A) I would exercise my own personal, sacrosanct right to modify my opinion of the Christian Church and withdraw all of this pandering to the clergy which I have been willing to provide, all of these blandishments about their good intentions and the core message of the Gospel, but instead would

• (B) change my song entirely and let it be known to the intelligentsia of the world that because of an engineered controversy, in which my own human error was exploited to the hilt, and in which there was no lack of deliberately baiting me to try to get me to slip up in an angry moment, but mostly through flat out misrepresentation, my God given rights to free speech on the topic of atheism and the respect which I believe we must accord atheists was deliberately and brutally stomped down and resulted in an unfair and reprehensible stomp down of my freedom of thought and freedom of expression on WP. In other words, I won't be abused and then silenced. The use of silence is part of the way that the clergy have gotten away with so much abuse over the years. I would not let myself be framed up, baited, blocked and then be complicit in my being silenced, and I would use the court of public opinion to achieve a justice denied at WP. But then that won't happen now because I was able to clarify the record and anyone can see that my edits have been earnest, balanced, helpful and clearly in good faith, breaking the impasse which kept this page from normal development,and for that I should be thanked not hassled. Meanwhile, you have contributed not one single edit to mainspace, and simply initiated what I have the right to regard as a mini-Inquisition and then a prosecution of the way I handled myself in the face of your prosecutorial innuendo. You know, that is a process the Church is well practice with and many a heretic has been burnt at the stake in accordance with that exact formula. Not foolin' me and nothing that goes down on these pages escapes the scrutiny of the intelligentsia, even people who have left WP long ago over similar matters. So Letting my religious friends know what happened is not anything any WP personnel should even dream of forbidding - yet this very act is what you characterize as a "threat". Repeat: any communication with clergy would in no way shape or manner constitute a threat of adverse action against LoveMonkey and any representation to the contrary is a flat falsity and distortion of the record. There was never any assertion or implication that the communication with Fr.Thomas would relate to LoveMonkey; that is a utter distortion if not an outright invention; it is a best an overzealous prosecutorial manuever on his part, if it is not a case of malicious prosecutorial prosecution or parania. There is no basis whatsoever in characterizing communication with Fr Thomas as a action "against" Love Monkey. Nor would that even work if it was my intention; the churches always defend their representatives, as recent history amply demonstrates, and only a fool would honestly believe that suppression of free speech regarding atheism is anything that any church official would take seriously. Thus, for LM to contend that DevilishlyHandsome is somehow terrorizing him for suggesting that there will be a conversation with the church leaders is patently ridiculous; the RO officials would only nod their heads vaguely even if they knew the identity of LoveMonkey, which they don't. In other words, LM is acting like he thinks that Fr Thomas would treat him unfairly if DevishlyHandsome reported him to Fr Thomas. That shows a lack of faith in Fr Thomas.

The final point and then I hope this ordeal is finally over and we can go our separate ways with no further recriminations, accusations and threats of administrative blacklisting, is this - that I came here pursuant to a deliberate outreach on the part of WP to attract editors to this article. WP shouldn't ask people to edit articles and then ban-threaten them because POV warriors don't like them. I utilized a lawful account of which, outside of the provocations to a harsh word to those who sought to have me ousted, did not do anything but add constructive editorial content, and that despite these constructive, thoughtful edits someone who is clearly and unashamedly taking a partisan POV on the topic of this article shifted the dialogue into a discussion of this user and whether this user was legal and then the conversation was shifted to a discussion of ways to mess with this user and harass this user using a check user background investigation which might lead to "outing" this user as a suspected panderer-of-athiests, which could actually create a personal security risk for this user in many areas of the world. So the take home lesson is that we should stick to the topic of the article and stop making other users the subject of our discussions unless there is a clear and convincing reason not to. As is predictable and happened here, once that line is crossed, then you do perhaps provoke policy violations.

So to some degree I took the bait and got a bit angry as well I should have. I was provoked into a statement which taken out of context could be presented by someone with a prosecutorial motive and could be read to be taken to mean something it does not. All that was meant was that Fr. Thomas and others would be made to know that RO activism on WP has created a bit of a dust up and that in my opinion that damages my relationship with RO folks with whom I work. If you "out" me with checkuser and I am associated publicly with Militant atheism, while yourself clinging to anonymity, posing as a victim, I will have little choice but to go with the flow. So how about we just let this matter rest; I've made my own apology to the extent appropriate, you do what you want but as per the gist of my single post to your TalkPage all I ask of you and all I have asked of you is to please leave me alone and stick to the business at hand. Is that too much to ask?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

_____ You apologise for your threat and then you post more of the same language ..

You complain about me reporting you and then make the comment.. "Holding people responsible is an exercise in moral responsibility not the reverse, as you manage to present it,"

"The real substance of your allegation, once we stop playing word games with the word "threat" is this suggestion that I was implying that there was an attempt to get you personally in trouble with Father Thomas or someone."

No your threat was unclear and therefore open ended and as such ambigious.

"You know, that is a process the Church is well practice with and many a heretic has been burnt at the stake in accordance with that exact formula"

Name some and source em then we'll see if the numbers compare to the millions killed in the name of atheism. We can see that in Professor John Lennox's comments on militant atheism [22] and the atrocities committed in the name of atheism and other Wikipedia valid sources [23]-Dinesh D'Souza, [24] Ian Hutchinson.

"that is a utter distortion if not an outright invention;"

So the administrator Ed Johnston is delusional, ask him if he sees your comment as one that is not a perceivable threat (thus warranting his response). The more I read your comments the more I percieve you as deceptive and duplictious. As this appears to be something of a game to you. You wish to use Wikipedia to make a point about how your persecuted as an individual and yet this article is evidence that athiesm is not with clean hands and ou don't like that, even if millions of people really were killed because they believed in a God or the supernatural. Your so completely wrong its obvious, as you'll never admit that atheists killed and persecuted millions of religious people (Buddhists, Taoists, Christians) because of their religion. Prove me wrong post you agree that atheists did kill theists and then source it. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |}

This is not about atheism vs theism. I never said any of this. I never denied that Stalin was an atheist and a mass murdered. I take offense at the implication that I did. As a matter of fact, I myself am not an atheist. So why not chill. I will respond to your questions and comments about the topic at hand, upon which we share many areas of agreement. As stated before I apologized for not carefully watching the tone of my remarks which might be misinterpreted and that is not and was not qualified in any way. Please be gracious enough to accept that at face value. And the point of my remarks about my numerous friends nthe RO communion was primarily intended to suggest maybe we could be friends rather than such adversaries. I really have no agenda other than the truth and the integrity of WP and my relationships with all editors here, all. Maybe if we take a break we will recognize our common humanity our common dedication to a better WP and move on. Thank you in advance. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this "small" revert is...

[25] if it is the case that most of the cited "critics" are "not believers", the way this section and many other sections of the article read, it gives the impression that certain authors, particularly Foote, were vociferous critics of this Spectre Haunting Europe, "Militant Atheism", and that they used the term in a routine manner to debunk this menacing, monolithic entity ("Militant Atheism"). Thus, my colleague tacitly concurs. Thus, there is a problem with the sentence as is, but, since I can't think up a CLEARLY NPOV, NOT-TERRIBLY-CONTROVERSIAL FIX, I will hold back and wait for a concensus unless inspiration strikes. Thanks to ALL of the editors who see and tacitly acknowledge that my minor little tweaks were all fine and good, I appreciate that. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Philosphically speaking" Bad grammar

So - is this or is this not a quote? If so, this section is obsolete and perhaps can be manually archived? If not please remove the word "speaking". [26] If it is a quote then it was removed in error. As you say, a "small" tweak to an otherwise acceptable body of editing. Even the user who threatened a personal investigation of the editor had no quarrel with the edits, so hopefully the divisiveness will pass and we can proceed with improving this article with at the least an attempt at conducting ourselves as professional intelligentisa. I will check this edit and if as you state it was a quote, please accept my apology for a good faith error. If, on the other hand, it is not a quote, then it is a simple matter of a grammatical correction. Thanks for pointing that out.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's allot of apologizing don't you think. Looks to me like you need to practice what you preach and take a break from the article as your making allot of mistakes which is effecting the collaboration here. Your making allot of mistakes in the article and here on the talk page and it is one thing to be misunderstood, it is a complete other to make threats, personal attacks and accuse people of bad faith (like I have pointed out). You like to apologize and then in the same breath go back to committing policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit #441259171

This is not the place to request an SPI, and accusing others of sockpuppeting on an article talk page is bordering on WP:PA. If you have concerns, take them to the appropriate place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[[27]] I am grateful that my esteemed colleague is now finally discussing the edits rather than this person. Regarding this edit, the edit comment was perhaps a bit frisky, and if it is found to be offensive I of course gladly apologize for causing offense. But it is not a basis for a sock investigation, see section below. Nor is it cause for a warning, a temporary block, a topic block, nor is it a violation of policy. It is simply something that LoveMonkey found to be an overstatement and perhaps offense and like two adults we can work this out without threats of administrative action. (The topic of whether calling a personal attack a personal attack is a personal attack will not be addressed at the moment, if ever, because of its obvious circularity.) What was being understood to be false was the assertion about Marxist-Leninism, which is clearly not factual. The purpose of the edit, and what sparked the admittedly perhaps overly harsh term "rubbish" was the way the article was written which suggested that the assertion was a Truth, rather than the opinion of [[whomever]. If you are an experienced editor and a thinking Christian, as per your userpage, I expect you to support, entirely, my edit, and have no reason to think that you do not. In fact, you did not revert the edit, you did not contest the edit in any way, so we are in agreement as things stand that it was a good and proper edit. So if my edit comment was a bit harsh, I accept that criticism cheerfully. You are right, "POV rubbish" is a tad bit too sharp a criticism. But we agree that the edit was a good edit. The only reason i was so impatient in the first place was because so much of the article text is downright deceptive. I did not allege at that time nor do I allege now taht it is deliberate or not in good faith. To the contrary, I appreciate the excellent foot noteing. Now, I will address the rest of your concerns as they may seem to be appropriate however I am suggesting a VOLUNTARY MUTUAL MORATORIUM for a cooling off period of unspecified duration. The below post was written previously and is legalistic and best ignored except by adminsDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I would note to the admins that you just apologized and then withdrew your apology. You just said it was wrong to make the comment in the edit summary that you made but it was wrong for me to point that out because the "edit" was good. Now that's being deceptive. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Threat of checkuser Inquisition investigation is not warranted No valid basis for a check: Wikipedia policies and guidelines "While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden." =Breakout= to deceive other editors disrupt discussions distort consensus or otherwise violate community standards There is no allegation of any of these. Nor did they occur. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) == China: Please shorten this sentence if possible == "The People's Republic of China is often characterized as an atheist state,[82][83] as atheism is officially endorsed by the ruling Chinese Communist Party.[12]" Proposed: Atheism is officially endorsed by the ruling Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China. (If and only if that is cited by reliable secondary.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Request withdrawn.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 'But you use that word but allot, it appears your trying to justify your disruptive edits and behavior here. Trying to claim your misunderstood and then trying to justify. And you think you can defer accountability by claiming you where joking or your misunderstood. Looks to me like your well acquainted with Wikipedia and not a new contributor. It appears to me that you should not be putting requisites in your apologies. As I say you've broken all of the above mentioned list of criteria, you did that when you threatened me. No apology is valid when you blame the person you've threatened after you've been called to task. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus-in-principal on structural revision

(I am maintaining a moratorium on argument and self-defens(ive) discussion of certain criticisms with a particular editor about past events not neccessarily a moratorium on minor, non-controversial edits which do not substantially modify the article)

PROPOSED: That we reach consensus that

• the title of the article is Militant atheism and that the article should be about the topic of "militant athiesm" if we agree that such a thing exists in reliable secondary sources.
• the text of the article is at present predominantly about critique of "militant atheism" as allegedly practiced by Russian Communism and others
  • a subsection or subsections discuss criticism of "militant atheism", generally and thematically rather than as practiced in specific geographies.
• Both the text of the article and the subsection(s) therefore do not constitute an article which describes an object, "militant atheism", but rather, describes Criticism of militant atheism in practice.

PROOF: There is no handbook of principles and practices of Militant Atheism. Karl Marx did not use the term. Dawkins used it as a joke. Foote used it as sarcasm.

For now, i just want to put this thought out. Later we can brainstorm remedies. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Source that these comments where done in jest. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In the video Dawkins on Militant atheism; Foote, if you read the footnote, no pun intended.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "MA" a Hoax to begin with? Inherent structural/molecular flaw in this article, throughout.

In a nutshell:

Militant atheism (MA) is merely a de facto POV neologism, despite the early references, which are basically fraudulently interpreted as establishing MA as a unified category. It is not was not a unified concept until evangelizing fundamentalists concocted it was a slogan.

• The references of a supposed unified concept MA is built out of passing use of an (adjective+ a noun), cleverly now proposed as a unified pronoun "Militant Atheism".

• • Examples: (1) Foote
  • Example: Kohut
    • Note: Both were materialists and used the terminology in a manner quite opposed to the current evangelists who use it as a perjorative. To the extent that they may rely upon googlable citations of earlyuse of adjective+noun, they would be committing an intellectual fraud and a hoax.

• They even hypostasize it as if the abstract analytical concept were itself a living entity, an evil personage which "compelled" the Communist Party of China.

• (This is clearly possible a set up job by fundamentalist POV warriors to establish a POV fiction that evil is incarnate in the form of Militant Atheism=Satan, a childish and superstitious concept rejected by most contemporary theologicans. )

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflic:t Anapum/Jess; Third opinion oon "toxic to humans"

I am pretty much a disinterest third party in that I have received blistering reversions from both of these editors and I have an opinion on the current edit conflict between them. Incidentally, I have no clue who exactly is who or what is what and furthermore the nature of this dispute is such that my opinion is assuredly NPOV for this reason: it is unclear whether the contested remark is such an overstatement that it will make the party who said it look bad. Thus both atheists and religionists should put aside their POV agendas and accept this opinion at face value.

• RE: "toxic to human life"
• VIEW: that is such a harsh choice of words that it will probably antagonize religious evangelists et al. On the other hand, it is so blunt that "militant" (adjective) persons who evangelize atheism (if anybody really does, these days) might benefit from such a frank, unapologetic and blunt statement.
• THUS: we have no right to use those words UNLESS they were used by one of the sources which are legitimately mainstream vis a vis the faction they are purported to represent. In other words, if Hitchens or Dawkins used that terminology, it can go in mainspace. Otherwise, it is [{WP:OR]] on steroids, aka putting words in people's mouths. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

- +

Per WP:RS and WP:V, I used that clause to characterize their common belief. The references for the statement can be found in my suggestion for the "Introduction." Do you have another way to describe these individuals, that is supported by reliable sources that connect them with the term militant atheism? If so, I am open to suggestions. Please offer them here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is never to unilaterally impose a description always make clear "according to" so and so...and don't label them unless they self-identify. Otherwise, the hook is in...Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Have you read WP:SECONDARY, which states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."? I look forward to your comments. That being said, I've revised my suggestion for the "Introduction" to excise the phrase in question. We can add in a description that is agreed upon, after the introduction is agreed upon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When using characterizations of anyone and anything by their critics, or supporters, readers benefit when the POV of the source is apparent. One of the deceptions being deliberately pushed on this issue is that statements of POV sources is asserted in mainspace as if written on golden tablets or written in stone, and the fact that some hack self-ordained website owner made this statement somewhere is used as "source". Meanwhile, they shut down Atheism 3.0 claiming that PhD's published by major New York publishing houses were not reliable sources...this is a propaganda entente from evangelists...note the creeping Medieval realism as well...

You'd actually be surprised. I authored the Atheism 3.0 article and voted to keep it. On the other hand, the individuals who opined the deletion the article identify themselves as atheists, not to suggest that there is any correlation there. To quote Phædrus, "Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many." Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Result of investigation

(Written before Anapum's remarks were viewed)

When I wrote the above I was just looking at the edit summs and diffs and as you know it is difficult to distinguish footnotes from mainspace text. Upon a FIND search on the word "toxic" I determined that the coinage was a hyperbolic caricature of New Atheist views. As such, it should not be stated in mainspace unless it is clearly identified as a characterization by an opponent of atheists; also, there would be a heightened notability requirement on that kind of incendiary rhetoric. Demagogue?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheism regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated, and differs from moderate atheism because the it holds religion to be harmful. Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,

and significant in the French Revolution, atheist states such as the Soviet Union, and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The term militant atheist has been used going back to at least 1894, and it has been applied to political thinkers. Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger.

The appellation has also been criticized by some activists, such as Dave Niose, who feel that the term is used indiscriminately for "an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God."

Hello! I would like to thank everyone for all their efforts in trying to ameliorate this article. It has been a long process, but we have all offered our thoughts, references, and work to make way for a better page. Per the suggestions of users such as User:Devilishlyhandsome and User:Abhishikt here, I've moved much of the philosophical discussion on the concept of militant atheism to its own section, titled "Concepts," which is the same way the article on existentialism is setup. In turn, I have retained a précis of the information of the "Concepts" section in the introduction, which is supported by four references, as delineated above. User:PeaceLoveHarmony suggested an introduction above, which drew mixed responses, due to the fact that its language such as "ambiguous, and broad-ranging" was not specifically stated in any of the references, as suggested it should be in WP:RS and WP:V. Its statements of categorizing the entire term as being a pejorative one also was not grounded in the reality that organisations, such as the League of Militant Atheists, considered the term to be one to take pride in, as mentioned by User:LoveMonkey and User:Turnsalso. I now offer an introduction, that in accordance with WP:LEDE, summarizes all the content in the article, and more importantly meets WP:RS and WP:V. In otherwords, nothing therin is a synthesis of information, but reflects the content used in reliable sources. Furthermore, it distinguishes between historical usage and recent usage of the term, also taking into account that it is used pejoratively nowadays. I offer this introduction for evaluation here. Thank you for your time, understanding, and contributions. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support this introduction per the argument listed above. It meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEDE and moreover, is not a synthesis of ideas. It also gives due weight to the material presented in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not from NPOV. It is not much different from what we have currently. It doesn't solve the various issues like clearly stating various usage of the term. Abhishikt (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Stop VOTING. This is not GoogleTopHits. This is not 50%+1 makes it Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support KEEP voting! While not perfect, the proposal is the best I've seen so far. It covers the salient points and is sourced. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editorial decisions are based upon consistency with principles not a majority in an given discussion.Groupthink forced "consensus" is subject to reversion by the next new editor and previous consensus is meaningless. WP exists in the present. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion if you are at all serious, thank you in advance. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I can support the proposal made here. I do not see any major problem with it. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support We are here to improve and this appears to be a move in that direction. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This doesn't seem to address any of the issues editors have raised above, namely by distinguishing the two uses of the term. We need to incorporate that into any lead changes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose substantively and as a point of process. Aggregating the issues is not what works what works is breaking the issues out piece by piece. My major substantive concern has been expressed elsewhere and as I recall implemented without objection. Imposition of this proposal en bloc is at this stage a dead letter and it were somehow rammed through, anyone sticking to the totality of this edit out of some kind of "loyalty to the (old) consensus" would be violating the basic premises of Wikipedia and of rationalism. Each issue has to stand on its merits, and some sort of bloc voting on a block revision is the kind of "herd" or "mob" action which has been harshly criticized at Meta and in the mainstream press. How about we agree not to agree out of groupthink and decide each issue on its own merits. This is not the Cominterm.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This intro still has the same problem which the entire article has, which is that it disingenuously conflates violent atheism of past totalitarian regimes with the current peaceful atheism advocacy of the so-called "New Atheists". The difference between the two needs to be drawn much more strongly, both in the lede, and in the article itself. As to the false claim that my previously deleted lede uses original research and synthesis, I suggest taking a look at my comments in the relevant discussion above. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Link here-->[28] PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support There is no conflation, there is mention of the two applications of the term. It can't get much less conflated without saying "some people apply 'militant atheism' to the New Atheism movement, but that's just silly." Turnsalso (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede has prominent POV distortion . Notice of Intent to Edit.

The word "pernicious" is attributed to the "MilitantAtheists" however there is no citation that any atheist philosopher has ever anywhere in any context used the term "pernicious". There is a relatively obscure videoblogger named Jonathan Miller who attributed that viewpoint to one specific Nobel laureate he was lucky enought to interview. It is not nice to put words in people's mouths when they grant interviews. To put words into the mouths not only of Dr. Weinberg, the Nobel Laureate who was apparently subject to this false light defamation but also to tar Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with this same brush is tantamount to a subtle [{W:BLP]] violation. In any case, it is clearly not supported by the citation, it is a violation of [{WP:NPOV]] and is also WP:OR and [{WP:SYN]] but, worse, it is falsification, i.e., not even good Original Research/Synthesis. It is simply a highly perjorative word plucked from the thesaurus by somebody named Jonathan Miller,pasted on the web over the interview of Dr. Weinberg, and now, via this WP article, attributed, en masse, to an entire class of persons deemed "militant".

I am not saying that this is a deliberate distortion, but the net result is a gross POV distortion. Please cite notable atheists using this term "pernicious". The term is, despite the concatenation of citations, not itself cited. It does not belong in the lead and is revertable on sight. This notice is strictly a courtesy.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Further research on "pernicious"

Apparently Miller is getting his cue from "Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed" By Kerry Walters who attributes this term "pernicious" to Weinberg. But this is not a word from any cited atheist sort. Weinberg himself says "harmful". I am currently reviewing the entire video - OK, it just finished - based on one listening session of the entire Weinberg-Miller interview, Weinberg does not use the word pernicious a single time. (He uses the word "corrosive" with respect to Science, but that is of course irrlevant.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=eHOtkVFCKscC&pg=PA12&dq=militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=KCwiTu2FDoL2tgOXmLRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=militant%20atheism&f=false

But this is just POV of Kerry Waters putting words in [{Stephen Weinberg]]'s mouth. This might be almost a WP:BLP violationg, implicitly. It is offensive.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google research =

Google search so far negative no corrolation to the word pernicious with relevant terms.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another POV distortion error: Baggini was an atheist

The text cites Baggini as though he was an anti-Atheist correctly characterizing the whole lot of atheists but apparently he was an atheist who constructed a straw man of an extreme atheist who never existed so he could distance atheism from the kind of extremism. But here we are now presenting this phantasm as though it was the exemplar of atheist militancy...

According to an anti-atheism writer!Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=eHOtkVFCKscC&pg=PA12&dq=militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=KCwiTu2FDoL2tgOXmLRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=militant%20atheism&f=false Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Word razor on hold

Dear all. Without recanting a word I've said here about verifiability or my perception about the need to remove unverified assertions from the article, I must put my announced intentions on hold indefinitely.

This is a direct result of a serious discussion elsewhere on verifiability, deliberate content forking to avoid discussion, and the apparent contradictions between the verifiability principle and guidelines commonly interpreted by administrators as justification to maintain articles and/or content despite the apparent absence of credible sources.

Until I have gained some clarity on whether the latitude to be given to unverified content is so broad as to make it reasonable for me to regard Wikipedia as a blog rather than as a serious attempt at creating an encyclopaedia, I don't think it is reasonable for me to act in what is clearly regarded as a controversial manner.

Should someone else here wish to pursue the word razor arguments in my absence, feel free to do so without reference to me. But if the editors here wish to ignore I ever made the word razor argument, feel free to do that as well.

In terms of the discussion conducted elsewhere that I referred to above, should Wikipedia administrators demonstrate to me that my interpretation of the verifiability principle was always mistaken, I intend to retire from active participation in Wikipedia altogether. Should the outcome affirm my understanding of the verifiability principle, and the stated rules against content forking to avoid controversial debate, I may return to this debate, but I anticipate that this might not occur for some time. The process of seeking clarification at Wikipedia is not an easy or quick one, and requires significant time and effort that cannot, therefore, be spent on articles.

This post is a courtesy explanation of why I will not act on my own timetable for the word razor cuts.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Long strecth from 1890's to 2009 please clarify

Regarding this edit [29] This reference Ken McFarland (2009). "I Don't See It That Way". Review and Herald Publishing Association. Retrieved 26 July 2011. Such terms as "militant atheism" and "militant agnosticism" exist, too, for a reason. In no way supports the spurious assertion that a “term” ([MA] has “been used going baci to at least 1894.

This reference is an unsupported opinion asserted by someone named Ken McFarland apparently in 2009. That is quite a stretch! Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The source seems only to support the idea that the term exists, but not that it goes back to the 1890s. As such, I've removed it. We may be able to use that source elsewhere in the article, but it clearly doesn't back up that statement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

== Ref 7 == quite shady

Charles Colson saying "one scholar..blah blah..." is really just Charles Colsons' very POV POV. And it is cited to support an entirely different statement. Quite loopy.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Without identifying who that scholar is, it's not up to what ought to be the standards for an article about a sensitive term--JimWae (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• He seems to be arguing that Nietzsche was a political activist !?!--JimWae (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. On top of that, we're not talking about Nietzsche, and he doesn't explicitly say anything about the term "militant atheism". It's actually been bugging me for a while. I've removed the source, per these comments.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is nice that the editing on this article has moved from highly contentious edit warring to a mutually respectful tone of colleagues. But I hope we aren't losing the word razor guy, it seems that he has a fairly honed sense of how to go about things which is being somewhat under appreciated. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

'militant atheism' and doctrine

'atheism' or 'militant atheism' is not a doctrine or does not have a doctrine. The given reference of this does not associate doctrine with 'militant atheism'. Please provide WP:RS for use of word 'doctrine' in lede sentence "Atheism is classified as "militant atheism" when if it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated". Else we would need to re-write it. Abhishikt (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is highly problematic because it is taking one very precisely (or narrowly, depending on your POV) defined perspective, Jesuitical, and announcing it as an encyclopedic truth as though it was the classification of botanicals or the formula for the acceleration of spaceship. In reality, it is the officious pronouncemnt of a Jesuit scholar whose job it is to lampoon intellectually those whom he can no longer legally have burnt at the stake. As such, it is a trenchantly POV bit of mumbo jumbo.

The corrective would be to spell out explicity, according to Fr. R______, a Jesuit theologician...and that is being generous because really in that piece of writing he is not doing theology, he is generating propaganda. And I do have good friends who are RC theologians, and I deeply respect many. But this hatchet job on atheists is not a theos+ology at all...Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For the time being identification of this as RC is a minor but helpful step toward truth but

• (1) is his writing under a nihil obstat and

• (2) is his writing actually classified as RC Theology per se or is is merely dicta

• (3) is he certified to teach RC Theology or only lesser topics and

• (4) most importantly, why is an isolated Jesuit, or at least why is the Roman Catholic gloss on the issue receiving such prominence in the article. It may be justified but it was my impression that the more notable propagators of the "militant atheism" taxonomy were the fundamentalists. It would be quite helpful if anyone can clarify these point.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "militant atheism" as a doctrine, there are sources which have described it this way. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the EDIT NOTICE: No major shift w/o consensus

COPIED TO TALK PAGE OF Abhishikt

I reverted a substantial edit made without consensus. Just because four people in a contested process were able to for the time being prevent a poorly-documented (2 refs) article about a topic (Aeth 3.0) from its own freestanding article does not give you the right to unilaterally obliterate all mention of any author in that tradition, particularly under this kind of edit warning. Please do not do this again, thank you very much. Cheers.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Offer of reconsideration

This is a substantial edit because you are removing content. As far as I can seem all of the other recent edits have been limited to at most a few words or maybe adding no more than a couple sentences which are pertinent to existing content. Whenever you remove content, that is a big deal. However you gave two separate reasonings, the first of which I have pointed out is a misapplication of [{WP:NOTABILITY]] as a license for erasing a published Harvard author on the flimsy basis that a related, botched article failed an afd. You know better than that so I will Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. However, your second rationale appears to be worthy of discussion and you may win me over if there is a misapplication a critique of scientism....Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Openers:

• Bruce Schneidman is not necessarily "not notable"
• Even if he is not notable for article purposes does not mean he is a member of an blacklisted atheist authors list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4):@Devilish I understand that you feel strongly about this "Atheism 3.0" thing, but please realize that, until we have sources which appropriately document the topic, the community has determined that it is non-notable. Trying to put the content in a smattering of "atheism related" articles, and edit warring on this article to keep it in, are not ways to get your information presented. There are two problems with this content. #1 is that the community has decided the concept is non-notable, and #2 is that the ref doesn't discuss "militant atheism". I'm removing the content per these concerns. If you have sources which somehow link this content to the topic of the article, feel free to present them here and we can discuss it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

With that said, I'll note that you are correct that Bruce Schneidman is not necessarily "not notable". The community has determined that "Atheism 3.0" is as of now, however, so mention of it would have to go. We could leave in the rest, except for concern #2, which squarely places the content as unrelated to this article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally off base. Just because a free standing article failed an afd does not permit you to blacklist all reference to the topic. Also, I finally got ahold of the old failed article which had only two refs; my writing on the topic has more refs than that. But this is beside the point. You can't censor all reference to Aetheism 3.0 just because the article failed. You should know better than to make such an outlandishly incorrect statement, I think you may be the one who is excessively wrapped up in that issue.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User Mann jess, I do not mind if you remove reference to Atheism 3.0 but the content of the paragraph is indeed relevant. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be permissible to remove a reference to A 3.0 iff it is not relevant but not on the basis that its failure to pass afd as a freestanding article constitutes a warrant to delete all mention of it on WP. But removal of longstanding content without discussion was open & shut, um, error, as was the expungement of mention of Bruce.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with reference to Atheism 3.0 being reinstated. It is okay with me if you reinstate it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Devilishlyhandsome, Anupam and all; if you don't mind I would like to copy-paste the reasons I have given for removal of that sentence - "1. Bruce Sheiman or Atheism 3.0 is not notable 2. The sourced book criticizes "scientism" and not 'militant atheism' for "belief that science is capable of determining the existence of God".

It seems some people never read the second reason I have given. The sourced book nowhere mentions anything which is in the article. The statement in the article is attributed to 'scientism' in that book. This makes it clear that the sentence is totally baseless. This is the reason I thought there is no reason to get consensus about a sentence, which is not supported by source.

So assuming my second reason is also read, do we have consensus for removal of that sentence? Abhishikt (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, I do not support the removal of the content. The term "scientism" is not used in the reference. It actually makes explicit reference to the term "militant atheist":

The militant atheist asserts, incorrectly, that science is capable of determining the nonexistence of God.

As a result of this finding, the content should continue to remain in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh... Now I see it. My bad in not finding this line earlier. I think the current sentence wordings are changed from the source. There is a big difference between determining existence and nonexistence of god. So I propose following line, which is very much according to the source.

Bruce Sheiman, himself an atheist, thinks that militant atheist are incorrect in asserting that science is capable of determining the non-existence of God.

Do we have consensus for this sentence? Abhishikt (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Before plowing through all of this (don't get me wrong I am rather long winded myself) I would like to thank you for your very cordial reception of a revert. And your detailed response.

However, regarding:

• It seems some people never read the second reason I have given.

Two points:

• Had the first rationale not been so contentious and, IMHO, incorrect, we would have gotten to the second one...(  :) )
• Had Jess not jumped in to continue to whip the dead, irrelevant horse which your first rationale revived into contention, time might have been saved.

That's all for now. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a source uses the words "militant atheism" doesn't make it appropriate for the article. There are numerous problems with this source. Among them, I'm not convinced of its notability, and providing a criticism of scientism from one author without first even discussing scientism is undue. Most importantly, this book was written in 2007, and is being used to supplement content on the USSR in the mid 1900s. Sheehan is quite clearly not referring to Soviet atheism in his book, though this placement makes it appear as though he is. If this content is included in the article at all, it needs to be moved to a new section, and contextualized appropriately.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In view of "Militant atheists are scientific materialists who believe that science will someday explain all of reality and that there is no need to resort to supernatural agents. The denounce religion as “superstition” and continue to think that humanity will one day “outgrow” it. "

I think the proposed sentence is flawed as follows

• Bare identification of the author as an atheist would be a violation of Anapamu's objection, my objections to which I hope he is in the process of considering, but from my perspective should be refined. (No this has nothing to do with...anything aside from that) the reader would be better served by being put on notice that the author is affiliated or identified with an emergent conciliatory trend within atheism. But aside from this (relatively minor) point, my more substantive objection is as follows.
• It seems that the salient point is not pertaining to the question of science's capacity to fix the (non)existence of a Creator or Omniscient Controller but rather - with respect to this article - the issue of the fact that they "denounce religion as 'superstition and...[so forth]Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Another issue with this sentence:Bruce Sheiman, himself an atheist, thinks that militant atheist are incorrect in asserting that science is capable of determining the non-existence of God.

He's a very smart man and that strikes me as a terribly dumb thing for him to be saying and as such not at all typical or notable as a sample. I don't think that Dawkins or Hitchens or the rest of them really believe that nor do I think that kind of cartoonish straw man is typical of the author. How does he think "MA" philosophers think this is to be proven? A pap smear? Carbon dating? It doesn't pass the smell test. Just, MyHonestOpinion.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Identification of the author as an 'atheist' is the change that Anupam has currently done the article. The other part of "who believe that science will someday explain all of reality and that there is no need to resort to supernatural agents. The denounce religion as “superstition” and continue to think that humanity will one day “outgrow” it" is mostly what Sheiman thinks 'Militant Atheists' should do. This will not be a value-add to this article.

And I agree with Mann_jess that it is WP:UNDUE for Sheiman, but I am okay to compromise on mentioning a single sentence as per my proposal. Do you agree with my proposal or want to offer any improvement suggestion? Abhishikt (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that this author has important point to make on the article topic and has an influential recent book with an entire chapter devoted to "Militant Atheism". However, I could be persuaded that it is perhaps WP:UNDUE to quote his view on Russian ideology, but at this point I don't see that his in point remark is so terrible. Maybe put his name in a footnote for the SOviet section, but include some mention of him perhaps toward the end of the article maybe in the section on critical comments about militant atheism, which is where his WP:,s>UNDUE weight belongs? Why don't you guys go ahead and put something in mainspace and if I have modifications we can look at the modification options. I would be nothing but honored if you implement any of the foregoing, but if something else emerges I willletcha know my critique, if any.

Thanks.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change to make the sentence according to the source. Abhishikt (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's undue, then a single sentence would still be undue. As I implied above, I might be okay mentioning this elsewhere in the article if it's properly contextualized, and it's shown to be the proper weight, but Sheiman is currently being quoted on Soviet atheism, a topic to which he never spoke and is clearly a non-expert. Even putting it elsewhere would have to be justified, which no one has even attempted quite yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had previously moved this sentence to criticism section, which looks appropriate, but it was opposed/reverted by Anupam. Abhishikt (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why such resistance to this writer. He is chaplain at Harvard University. Wasn't his book published by a University Press? His work was cited in an influential article by Relgion News Service which was run in major newspapers such as the Washington Post and spawned a detente between atheists and evangelists. So he is expert on the topic of atheism - in fact, a notable, verifiable reference on the topic of atheism. So in an interdisciplinary discussion of Soviet atheism, his area of expertise is the second half of the forumulation Soviet+atheism. Similarly, a specialist in Sovietology may have observations regarding Soviet atheism. But such a specialist probably will not be an expert on atheism per se. So I don't get it, what is the beef?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why keep readers in the dark?

This edit deprives readers of a useful frame of reference of who is who and what is what.

Whether or not people want to have WP be clear about its sources or not, the edit itself is not justified by the edit comment.

This is becuase the edit comment misrepresents the edit, which removes identification of the person being cited.

The edit summerary inaccurately objects to a "list". There is no "list" at all, there is merely a brief, one or two word, identification of who the cited source.

This is so that readers will have some sense of what the POV they are dealing with is all about.

It seems that your edit is not helping in this particular instance.

I don't think it is a good precedent and I don't think either "side" of the a/theism debate benefits by the deletion of attribution. If the person being cited is a Jesuit, or if they are an avowed atheist, is pertinent and useful.

Perhaps you would explain your rationale? As it stands, you merely object to a "list" as though this was a matter of irrelevant clutter,. It is not irrelevant clutter.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On second reading, you actually are taking my suggestion but...

OK so you are agreeing that rather than a mere name, which means nothing to readers, you are OK with "theologican Rahner" and "philosopher What's Her Name".

• I think I noted somewhere that I could live with "Jesuit theologian" although I wrote "Jesuit writer". But I think you are doing a disservice if you prevail with identifying Rahner merely as a theologian and resist identifying him as a Roman Catholic theologian.

• I don't think that believers are benefited by obscuring the affiliation because between RC and Protestants there is often a huge gulf in opinion. Similarly it is useful information to know "Lutheran theologican" as I believe Karl Barth is often identified and "Protestant theologian Paul Tillich" is often identified. If you think that "Jesuit" raises red flags, I would go along with "Roman Catholic theologian" but IMHO you are not helping the reader by having them guess.

• As for this woman, it seems that she is from a very POV religious publisher which is frankly religious and what is the big problem with the reader knowing this?

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not necessary to state the religious position of every writer in this article. If their work is published in a reliable source, their professional career is enough. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic link, what is the point of this link?

RESOLVED  Done [Inserted DH] The link is Off topic. The article is not about censorship of science. To the contrary! [30] The article is not about this, at all. Could you explain your logic?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the following reference states:

The book is fascinating to read because of the author's knowledge of the communist atheistic propaganda concerning science and religion. The communists were irrevocably opposed to the Big Bang as the origin of the universe since it contradicted their materialistic beliefs.

As such, the link rightly belongs in the "Further Reading" section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK fine, good answer, and thank you for your gracious reception of criticism.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers, Anupam^Talk 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Untranslated foreign language citations ???

[31]

This tells us nothing. This is en.wikipedia.org

There is no way to ascertain the veracity of this reference.

Many of us read French, German, Spanish but Czech? WHat % of en.WP editors read Czech.

What if someone wants to modify this using Russian text?

Seems like we need to insist on at least some verifiable reliable English language citations.

In this case, it seems the editor at the least owes us a rough translation by someone or other even if it is in part machine translated.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has been apprised of this content which is not consistent with policy due to lack of citation by this editor and another seasoned editor of this artice. Another editor has now complained in edit comment about the uncited Czech material. If the posting editor has not provided citations the content must be removed from mainspace and this is quite lenient because it really should have been removed as soon as it was posted. All of this waiting and advisement is strictly a courteousy to the editor but is a disservice to Wikipedia and to the reading public. I am prepared to move the content to user space, any comments?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed re-ordering: French Revolution prior to Russian/Bolshevik period.

Section French Revolution should go up top because it was the precedent for Marxist-Leninist militancy related to this topic. Doesn't seem like this should be too controversial.

History is best understood by reading about the earlier events before the subsequent events, particularly when the actors in the latter times were predicating their ideology and praxis upon a shared understanding of the earlier time period.

We do all agree that 1844 preceded 1917, right? Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam's disruptive editing

This is regarding Anupam's repeated attempts to delete/move 'A TED talk by Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism' in external links of this article. His disruptive editing is not limited to this, but I thought this is clear example of it.

Anupam, first you tried to delete this link without giving any reason or comment in your changes. Then you moved it to the end, when I reverted it asking for reason. You didn't give any response. and then moved the link again.

And everytime you are deceiving us by sneeking-in such deletes/changes with other major changes, so that it's very difficult to detect or search through history. This is very unfaithful of you.

Please stop doing this or else I will need to report to admin. Abhishikt (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to have that TED talk link as the first external link. The link pertains to the modern pejorative usage of the term, which is last in sequence of the relevant sections. Moreover, it is unilateral and polemic in nature. Please move it back to the bottom of the list. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is Why deceive by sneeking-in changes and not giving reasons when requested and keep on reverting other's changes?? Abhishikt (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did give reasons for moving the link. I previously stated that the link was polemical in nature. Since you have insisted on retaining the link, I did not remove it again but placed it in order of historical occurrence, but you continue to move it back up to the top. I hope this clarifies the situation. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey easy on the accusations. Anapum bends over backwards to appease the POV warriors and in my opinion way too much. To now slap a derogatory label of "Disruptive Editing" is more saber rattling becaue it implies he is engaging in sanctionable policy violations. I dislike many of his edits including reversions of some of my edits, his failure to press certain points in which IMHO he is correct but insufficiently persistent and some of his content additions I am not too wild about, but he is a conscientious and careful editor and if some of his edits are not to your satisfaction I suggest you either open discussion on those edits or if you have grounds, simply revert them. You have the power to do so at WP so why not use the powers at your disposal and spare us another round of the accusatory personal attacks such as those which I endured as the price of admission to this highly contentious artice. Thank you for your courteous consideration of these points and, in advance, for your collegial response. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

However I agree with :Abhishikt that the link is essential and I give no weight to Anapum's objection because the mere fact that he regards it as polemical is irrelevant lacking a WP policy banning polemical speech which is ridiculous. In fact this whole article is a hypostatizing of a concept which in most uses is polemical contrivance concocted to wage propaganda against not only avowed atheists but anyone who would challenge ecclesial authority. For instance, the mere conjunction of the ADJECTIVE+NOUN form has been erroneously used to create a completely false notion of a "term-in-use" since 1894...that is only one of many such absurdities. But what is relevant to this issue is that the fact that soneone regards Dawkin's talk as "polemical" and therefore deletable and deletable against consensus is simply a spurious posture which I don't find consistent with Anapum's more professional editing work. So unfortunately it is necessary to concur with Abishikt on this particular matter, and perhaps there has been some not-entirely-proper moves, but it doesn't seem that prosecution of each other over these minor infractions is not worth the freight so why don't we let this link exist, forgive and move on. I will look at the ordering and register an opinion on the order of the links if it seems like that opinion may be useful, but it doesn't seem to me that there are very many other videos which are as pertinent as this one so I will provisionally weigh in with Abishikt.

Keep link; high priority for link; provisionally. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone "snuck" replaced this link (see edit) to an Off Topic article basically an anti-Soviet screed unrelated to atheism, militant atheism, the suppression of religion by atheists bur simply some alleged lousy science by the Soviets (same folks who brought us Sputnik, the Mir space station, bunch of incompetents those Soviet scientists, eh?) At any rater, Militant Atheism @ WIkipedia is supposed to be about the alleged phenomena of Militant Atheism, if there is such a thing, and not a generalized grab bag for Bad Things About Russkies. We all know that Kawmunism is Bad. This is not the place for a broad POV propaganda offensive against TheRussians. I don't know if the link was added after we had agreed that it was OT or maybe it was just left there inadvertantly, I am not jumping to any conclusions.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" does not refer to this off topic link it refers to the Dawkins video link. Anapam,regarding this rv whatever we may have or may not have concurred on notwithstanding, what is any connection between Soviet science and militant atheism is a pretty far stretch. Can you assert a continuity to warrant inclusion of a link to an article about Soviet suppression of science in a section about Soviet suppression of religion? It seems that if you want to link out from the section that a link to the article about Soviet censorship generally suffices. This is not necessarily the ruin of the article, but it seems like an uneccessary OT link which creates the appearance of an anti-Soviet POV. It hurts the credibility of this article because it looks like it is more about dissing the Soviet Union any way it can than about MA. I have no love for the USSR but it seems like there is enough to say about its suppression of religion without careening off into OT. IMHO.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Today: Please disentangle Michael Ruse,[118][119] and Bruce Sheiman [120],

RE: "Prominent atheists, such as Michael Ruse,[118][119] and Bruce Sheiman, state that "when militant atheists portray religion, they critique every political and organizational misdeed that can be attributed to it" but "portray science in idealized terms, untainted by commercial interests, political intrusions, and ethical conundrums."[120]" The text summary intermingles these two authors + three references in a manner which is unsuitable. If might venture to sift them but someone may be unhappy, so I will make the suggestion and perhaps someone would rather come up with some language. But they didn't both make both statements, and, for that matter, it is not apparent from the foot notes that either made either remark. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)