Talk:Militant atheism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Cite formatting: google books and quote parameter: The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make.
Turnsalso (talk | contribs)
65 edits
Line 177: Line 177:
::::::No, controversial topics do not need any more support in their stated facts than other topics. Erecting a wall of quantity is not the way to build an article; it goes against [[Wikipedia:Article size]]. One or two quality cites are better than multiple cites. In fact, the essay [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles]] only mentions one cite per fact: "When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source." If there's a particularly "non-centrist" fact to support, "it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives." What is ''not'' desirable is to repeat the same exact quote in more than one source. Right, the guy said that. We get it. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::No, controversial topics do not need any more support in their stated facts than other topics. Erecting a wall of quantity is not the way to build an article; it goes against [[Wikipedia:Article size]]. One or two quality cites are better than multiple cites. In fact, the essay [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles]] only mentions one cite per fact: "When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source." If there's a particularly "non-centrist" fact to support, "it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives." What is ''not'' desirable is to repeat the same exact quote in more than one source. Right, the guy said that. We get it. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::: The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make. [[User:ArtifexMayhem|ArtifexMayhem]] ([[User talk:ArtifexMayhem|talk]]) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::: The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make. [[User:ArtifexMayhem|ArtifexMayhem]] ([[User talk:ArtifexMayhem|talk]]) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::: [[WP:SIZE]] is a guideline, not a policy like [[WP:V]], because of which these two sources are included. [[WP:RS]] says: "The policy on sourcing is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], which requires in-line citations 'for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.'" The use of multiple sources for the same quote indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement (especially important considering its likelihood of being challenged), because of its greater degree of documentation, more readily verifiable. [[User:Turnsalso|Turnsalso]] ([[User talk:Turnsalso|talk]]) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:43, 18 August 2011

Introduction

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

Closing this as supported - clearly, some users are opposed to this shift. While there is more support than there is opposition, the opposition still has a voice. I'd like to petition the supporters to continue working with the opposition to find more compromises and collaborate on further change. For clarity's sake - this is not a blank cheque for anybody who supports this version to mercilessly revert unrelated changes. Also, any further changes should be discussed on the page. We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes.


Keep up the great work, though. I think we're making progress. m.o.p 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Militant atheism regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated,[2][7] and differs from moderate atheism because the it holds religion to be harmful.[3][2][1] Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,[8][9]

and significant in the French Revolution,[10] atheist states such as the Soviet Union,[11][12] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.[13] The term militant atheist has been used going back to at least 1894,[14] and it has been applied to political thinkers.[15] 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.[16][17][18][7][19]

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."[20]

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, AnupamTalk 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I can support the proposal made here. I do not see any major problem with it. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We are here to improve and this appears to be a move in that direction. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Link here-->[1] PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • SupportIt is well written, and clarifies the well sourced uses of the term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Julian Baggini (2009). Atheism. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved 2011-06-28. Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.
  2. ^ a b c Karl Rahner (1975). Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved 2011-06-28. ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any possibility of knowing God. 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 mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration. Cite error: The named reference "Rahner" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Kerry S. Walters (2010). Atheism. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved 10 March 2011. Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious. Cite error: The named reference "Walters" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Phil Zuckerman (2009). Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved 10 March 2011. In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.
  5. ^ Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China" (PDF). Sociology of Religion. 65 (2): 101–119. Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China" (PDF). The Sociological Quarterly. 47 (1): 93–122. In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientific atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of "proletarian dictatorship" was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001) {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ a b Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). "God and Government". Zondervan. Retrieved 21 July 2011. But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged 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." Cite error: The named reference "Colson" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ Harold Joseph Berman (1993). Faith and Order: The Reconciliati oyn of Law and Religion. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved 2011-07-09. One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an atheocratic state.
  9. ^ J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved 2011-07-09. For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.
  10. ^ Alister E. McGrath. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Random House. Retrieved 2011-03-05. So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.
  11. ^ Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R. University of California Press. Retrieved 2011-07-09. On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' 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.
  12. ^ Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved 2011-07-09. 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.
  13. ^ The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2011-03-05. Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.
  14. ^ George William Foote (1894). "Flowers of Freethought". Nabu Press. Retrieved 2011-07-09. At the same time, however, we admit that militant Atheism is still, as of old, an offence to the superfine sceptics who desire to stand well with the great firm of Bumble and Grundy, as well as to the vast army of priests and preachers who have a professional interest in keeping heresy "dark," and to the truling and priviledged classes, who feel that militant Atheism is a great disturber of the peace which is founded on popular superstition and injustice.
  15. ^ 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).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ Elaine A. Heath (2008). "Mystic Way of Evangelism". Baker Academic. Retrieved 19 July 2011. 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.
  17. ^ Marcelo Gleiser (2010). "A Tear at the Edge of Creation". Simon & Schuster. Retrieved 26 July 2011. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and British journalist and polemicist Christopher Hitchens, a group sometimes referred to as "the Four Horsemen," have taken the offensive, deeming religious belief a form of "delusion," a dangerous kind of collective madness that has wreaked havoc upon the world for millennia. Their rhetoric is the emblem of a militant radical atheism, a view I believe is as inflammatory and intolerant as that of the religious fundamentalists they criticize.
  18. ^ Fiala, Andrew. "Militant atheism, pragmatism, and the God-shaped hole". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 65 (3): 139–51. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ Michael Babcock (2008). "Unchristian America". Tyndale House. Retrieved 26 July 2011. MILITANT ATHEISM The change in tone is most evident in the writings of the so-called New Atheists-Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens-men who have been trying to accelerate a process that's been under way for centuries.
  20. ^ Dave Niose (1894). "The Myth of Militant Atheism". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2011-07-09. When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

I don't know about the specific dates, but I am somewhat puzzled to see that the French Revolution is placed as an afterthought to the commie bashing that a lot of people like to come here for. Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have made the appropriate changes to separate ownership of the quoted statement. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TWO main uses

Even the Conservpedia article is more forthright in quickly getting to there being TWO main uses of this term AND distinguishing them. It says, in its 2nd sentence, "It can be found in varying degrees of militancy, from atheist authors such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who advocate atheism and oppose religion through books and speeches but do not advocate violence against religious people, to communist regimes, who advocate atheism and oppose religion through the repression and murder of believers." Just a month ago, the WP lede had, for a while, THREE paragraphs. That allowed the first paragraph to give a short description of the term & state there are TWO main usages BEFORE the lede (in a 2nd paragraph) got into details about state atheism. A third paragraph can then be about the more current usage of the term, and criticisms of such usage.--JimWae (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing where you're going with this probably helps, but in the interest of brevity, I'm with you. Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have made major headway in the article and addressing this issue will end the NPOV dispute in the article. I am committed to compromising with you on the issue and look forward to your reply. I can see your point that the Conservapedia introduction does explain the degree of militancy involved. Do you have a proposition for a sentence like that that we can insert into the article? If so, please state it below. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
End the NPOV dispute? Not even close. For starters, the extreme opinion of a Jesuit has been smuggled back in, see below, and the article is laced with agenda-driven wording to give credence to the anti-atheist jihad. That's not what WP is supposed to be about.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermingling of dubious POV assessments

[2] Anapam's edit masquerades a POV of a Jesuit as "Truth". You need a citation of a faction within something called "militant atheism" stating that is has these characteristics. With that edit, as, it seems in others, a Jesuit "hardliner" theology is being snuck into Wikipedia. And even if these characterizations are true and accurate, which they are not, necessarily, and not verifiably, they are not both true of all so-called "militant atheists". Wikipedia is not Jesuitopedia.

  • Atheism is classified in Roman Catholic writing as "militant atheism" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated,[1].
  • The truth of the matter is that the people such as Dawkins who are labeled "militant atheists" don't choose to "propagate" any "doctrine" but either
    • to stop the harmful proliferations of evangelical religionists
    • of
    • to stop the harmful practices which go with religion, whether or not the religions themselves proliferate.

Dawkins is mainly about the latter, as are most. Atheists as a rule disclaim caring one way or another about what people believe. They are militantly opposed to militant religionists proliferating their views.

  • If you object that this is OR or an essay, it might be if I put it in mainspace. But Anapum's edit makes into mainspace the essay of one isolated Jesuit ideologue, without the attributions he edited out. That makes this Wikipedia article a WP:SOAPBOX for the Jesuits.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Introduction Issue and Word Razor Solution

Hello, today I noticed that Introduction discussion was closed by the administrator who has been overseeing progress on this page. I went ahead and implemented the supported introduction, complete with the sourcing. Moreover, I've also taken the time to address several of the legitimate concerns that User:Peterstrempel addressed in the Word Razor section in several of my edits, including but not limited to the following edits: Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. In light of these facts, I have removed the NPOV tag from the mainspace of the article as the major issues with this article have been resolved. Any other new issues regarding the article can be discussed on this talk page. Thanks for all of your help and contributions to this article. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some stability may be upon us. It appears POV discussion has tapered off. No objection to removing the tag. – Lionel (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite formatting: google books and quote parameter

I trimmed a bunch of overlong Google Books URLs, reducing them to the page indicated. If only snippets were available, then I got rid of the URL as it was not directly supportive of the quote. In those cases I replaced the URL with the page number.

In general, the page number and year of publication should always be part of a citation.

Some of the citations were unneeded as they quoted the same guy with the same quote as the previous cite. I deleted those.

I find this article to be a nightmare to edit because of the great many quotes, lengthy ones, in the cite quote parameter. I do not feel these to be especially helpful in the cases where Google Books is available to take the reader directly to the page in question. Many are longer than is needed to prove the point.

In total, I deleted 45k of duplicated material, overlong URLs, quotes that are easily accessible, and so on. That's a lot of extra gack, and I think more can be trimmed. For instance, there are instances where two to six cites follow a stated fact. This is overkill and bogs the article down. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Which citations did you remove specifically? Also, one thing you must realize is that this is an article that is controversial. The material that has stayed in the article must discuss militant atheism specifically and the quotes are in the references to ensure that the statements in the article are verifiable. You can look through the archives to see that this has been discussed before. I do not wish to personally revert your removal of some of the quotes because that would revert your other work as well. Since you are new to this article, I would like to inform you of the page notice, that one of the reviewing administrators, User:Master of Puppets, added to the article. It has been added so users will discuss major changes to the article before implementing them. For example, the introduction of the article was discussed above and was then added to the article. I would kindly request that you please reinstate the quotes and references you removed. I would really appreciate it! Other than that, good job on adding the page numbers and year of publication to the references. The introduction was developed after months of discussion. The introduction originally made reference to the New Atheism movement, specifically. However, it was decided to explicitly list those belonging in the movement in the introduction rather than listing the movement (please see the archives). I would suggest reinstating the original introduction and discussing your proposed changes and reasoning behind changing it on the talk page to see if it gains consensus. I personally do not want to revert because you have made valuable edits. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly new to the article; I participated on the talk page a month ago, now in archive 4.
Your question about which citations exactly did I delete is a revealing one. The citations in this article are far too unwieldy, and such a simple question is not easy for people to determine by looking at the diff.
I removed duplicate refs, ones which were unneeded because they supported the same quote. I consolidated duplicate cites.
In terms of "major changes", I do not consider my cite formatting to be major. I do not consider summarizing a sentence in the lead section to be major, especially since that sentence was an exact duplicate of one in the article body, so I did not remove information from the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The accessdate parameter is not needed in a book cite. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following cite:
  • Jean-François Marmontel. Marmontel's Moral Tales. Ballantyne, Hanson & Co. It certainly stopped altogether short of the militant atheism of the Holbachian coterie ; and it may be doubtful whether, except in the ardour of the novitiate, it reached Voltaire's dislike of positive creeds.
It supported the same text as the preceding cite which I kept:
Other cites that I removed were simple duplicates that I combined in a named ref. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the second reference? The publishing company is different and it supports the assertion to ensure verifiability. I would request that you please reinstate references such as this one, that you have removed. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, duplicate cites clog the article, helping to make it a pig to load and a bear to navigate. One good cite is enough to nail down a fact. One! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an article which covers a controversial topic. Citations from different authors and publishers help support extraordinary claims. How many such references have you removed from the article? I would appreciate if you could let me know. I look forward to your reply. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, controversial topics do not need any more support in their stated facts than other topics. Erecting a wall of quantity is not the way to build an article; it goes against Wikipedia:Article size. One or two quality cites are better than multiple cites. In fact, the essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles only mentions one cite per fact: "When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source." If there's a particularly "non-centrist" fact to support, "it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives." What is not desirable is to repeat the same exact quote in more than one source. Right, the guy said that. We get it. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a policy like WP:V, because of which these two sources are included. WP:RS says: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires in-line citations 'for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.'" The use of multiple sources for the same quote indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement (especially important considering its likelihood of being challenged), because of its greater degree of documentation, more readily verifiable. Turnsalso (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rahner was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&oldid=445577230"