Talk:Militant atheism

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)

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-->[1] 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)
• SupportIt is well written, and clarifies the well sourced uses of the term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References

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.

Closure of Introduction Issue and Word Razor Solution

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

Closing discussion. Suggestion to remove POV tag went 8 days without response.– Lionel ^(talk) 12:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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, Anupam^Talk 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

This doesn't mean that the article is now written from NPOV. So putting it back. Abhishikt (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOVD? It clearly states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." You have not done so. Moreover, the main discussion regarding the introduction has been closed by the reviewing administrator. I have also worked with other editors here to resolve specific statements in other parts of the article (see the specific exhibits above). You cannot blindly add tags without pointing to certain statements and the consensus of other editors who have worked here for months. If you have a legitimate concern, you may bring it up. However, do not breach policy and edit war. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but consensus was clear for the new lead. Adding the tag again is highly disruptive. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Voting" took place over only 3 days (July 26-28) - and several changes to the lede were made AND accepted AFTER the last "vote" was entered. Those changes were reverted when Anupam removed the NPOV tag. When "voting" was closed, the closer expressed the desire that the article continue to be worked on, not that a previous version be reverted to. He also did not suggest the article was now NPOV. The Conservapedia article is still more forthright in quickly stating that there are 2 main uses AND in distinguishing them. I would also point out that many moderate atheists also hold that religion can be harmful and that (despite the 2nd sentence of the current lede) is NOT a distinguishing mark from militant atheism. Here is an alternative: --JimWae (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Historically, the term's main application has been to atheist states, such as the former Soviet Union, which have regarded atheism as a doctrine to be propagated using all the powers of the state, including the administration of punishments for religious activities. Recently, the term has been applied, often pejoratively, to atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Victor Stenger (atheist writers often identified as New Atheists), who argue strongly for atheism and against religion, but who do not advocate punishing religious people.[15][16][17][18] Some activists, such as Dave Niose, have criticized this recent usage on grounds that it has been 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."[19]

JimWae, I did not mind mentioning the term "New Atheism" in the lead. However, it was contested by several editors as a synthesis of information. Though I supported its inclusion, others did not. As such, my revision of the introduction, which was indeed accepted by the reviewing administrator as consensus did not include mention of this term and a common characteristic binding these authors. Moreover, an attempt to add a descriptor to the introduction, which I thought was helpful, was reverted. Also, it is inappropriate to infer that your comments are somehow being ignored. You posted a discussion regarding this topic earlier and I tried to work with you there and suggested that you make a proposal, which you never did. In light of all these facts, I do not think that we should re-add the term "New Atheism" and a descriptor of the authors, because other editors have objected to it, even though I supported these suggestions. In addition your statement "who argue strongly for atheism and against religion, but who do not advocate punishing religious people" does not have any supporting references. One point about the current introduction is that everything is verifiable. Your assertion to remove a distinguishing characteristic that militant atheists hold religion to be harmful is unwarranted because that statement is supported by three sources, as well as the above consensus and administrator approval. I recommend the invocation of WP:STICK regarding that issue. If you do have other issues with the article, I recommend that you actually post them here, as other editors, such as User:Peterstrempel has done; as evidenced from the above exhibits, I addressed those issues. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does seem to have been achieved in that issue; a third party (MOP) even thought so. Voting took place over three days? No, votes were cast over three days; the discussion itself remained open for well over a week afterward. It appears that the definition "sufficient voting time" is here defined as "enough time to get a majority who oppose the introduction," which I'm pretty sure is not a Wikipedia-quality definition. Turnsalso (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Turnsalso. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My points are 1> 3 days is the time over which "voting" took place - and lots of time elapsed between the last "vote" and the closure. In that time, several other changes to the lede were "accepted", which Anupam reverted after the discussion closed. 2> The sources do NOT say "militant atheism... differs from moderate atheism because it holds religion to be harmful" - they say "usually or *always* harmful", "a harmful *aberration*" (not as a distinguishing mark from moderate atheism but from tolerant atheism), and "pernicious". Moderate atheists also think that religion can be harmful. (Even devout theists can agree that religion can *sometimes* be harmful - especially if that religion is not their own.) The distinguishing condition is that militant atheists see either virtually no value in religion, or more harm in religion than in its elimination. I know I have not provided a source for that yet (and may not find one since this whole topic is a mess) - but the 2nd sentence still oversimplifies what the sources say & misrepresents them. 3> The lede still does not distinguish those "New Atheists" from state atheism. (It is not a big deal to me if "New Atheists" are not mentioned - they are all mentioned individually anyway.) They do not advocate punishment for religious activities. --JimWae (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There was clearly NO consensus. There were multiple issues/objections raised and NONE of them were addressed, then how on earth is that a "consensus". And removal of POV tag is completed related to lege. When I tried to put back the POV tag, Anupam did edit-war and violated the WP:3RR rule in putting back tag POV tag. This is completed un-ethical. Abhishikt (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Abhishikt, it's interesting how five out of seven editors in this discussion have acknowledged consensus: User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:NYyankees51, User:Turnsalso, and User:LoveMonkey. I will repeat myself once more for you. Have you read WP:NPOVD? It clearly states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." Not only have you failed to mention any specific concerns, you performed a drive-by tag on the article and have edit warred to add it against consensus. User:NYyankees also echoes my post when he stated that your drive-by tagging is "highly disruptive." Contrary to your emotional comment, I have addressed several issues here and have provided several exhibits to demonstrate that fact, for example, see Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. Rather than being belligerent, if you do have any objections, you are welcome to state them here in writing and we will try to address them. I hope this makes things clear. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anupam You need count it and read it again, there were opposes raised by 4 editors and none of the issues raised by them were addressed. So can you get consensus by 5/7 editors? Abhishikt (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What don't you understand? I even listed the editors for you! I will do it once more: User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:NYyankees51, User:Turnsalso, and User:LoveMonkey, which amounts to five editors. As far as the issues, you need to explore the exhibits I listed in my previous comment, rather than repeating the baseless statement that "none of the issues were addressed." Your chicanery in this matter is unacceptable. --Anupam^Talk 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So your math is 5 supports and 4 opposes, which means 5 out of 7 editors supports and there is consensus??? And have you forgotten that "voting" is not consensus. Abhishikt (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No Abishikt, there are not four opposes here. There are only two in this thread, you and User:JimWae. --Anupam^Talk 08:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not read Talk:Militant_atheism#Introduction again. It was also opposed by Jess· Δ♥, PeaceLoveHarmony and Devilishlyhandsome. BTW my name is not Abishikt, it is Abhishikt (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are appealing to the issue of the introduction, which has been closed as supported by administrator, User:Master of Puppets. I would suggest reading WP:STICK. This issue is discussing your POV tag removal. Please kindly stop the conflating the two issues. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue with your moot points anymore. Other editors have also called your warring highly disruptive. Good night, Anupam^Talk 08:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The close of the intro discussion was proper. The duration of the discussion was 16 days. Longer than usual. It was closed by an admin. This is not the venue to discuss the close. If you have an issue with the close--do not bog down the talk page--take it up with the admin. The close was 9 days ago. It is too soon to reopen this.

The discussion to remove the POV tag took place 9 days ago. If you have a specific POV issue, start a new section and state it. There are admins watching this page: continued edit warring is subject to blocking of your account. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Also: The accessdate parameter is not needed in a book cite. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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:

• George Saintsbury. Prefaces and Essays. Macmillan Publishers. 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.

Other cites that I removed were simple duplicates that I combined in a named ref. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 23:58, 14 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. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is why these two sources are included, not trying to synthesize an article via a wall of quantity. 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)

Actually, WP:V does not recommend multiple sources when one is sufficient. It does not support your view that using more than one source "indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement". One reliable source is enough for verification.

I did not attack the "wall of quantity" as synthesis, I attacked it as impenetrable by the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources are a good thing. Multiple sources are a very good thing. Citing the same material many times because its been reprinted many times is tantamount to spamming. --Dannyno (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute discussion

Copied from my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR

Hi, just contacting you, as I recently got to know you in deletion of [Atheism 3.0] page.

User:Anupam has been doing his very POV edits on heavily disputed Militant atheism page. He had removed the POV tag of that page without consensus and when I tried to put it back, he did edit-war to removal it. He didn't care for WP:3RR and violated it by doing 3 reverts on Aug 18. Can you please look into this. Thanks and Regards, Abhishikt (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:SilkTork, I hope this message finds you doing well. As an experienced editor, I would like to clarify the User:Abhishikt's baseless accusations here. The POV tag was removed with consensus (five out of seven editors affirmed this) after administrator User:Master_of_Puppets affirmed the closure of the discussion supporting the current introduction, which User:Abhishikt opposed. Other issues in the article were also discussed and addressed in the course of the last few months. Despite the fact that these problems were resolved, User:Abhishikt repeatedly added the POV tag on the article, without stating specific concerns with the article, in violation of WP:NPOVD, which states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." In the current discussion on the talk page, User:Abhishikt has refused to list any specific concerns, as the policy suggests, but rather, edit wars to reinstate a tag over issues that have already been resolved (see the following exhibits for example, Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three). His repeated tagging without grounds has been criticized by other editors as well. I hope this clarifies the situation. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I suggest you read the discussion threads/history by yourself, rather than believing Anupam's chicanery.

If Talk:Militant_atheism#Introduction was a real consensus, then we won't be having discussion like Talk:Militant_atheism#Closure_of_Introduction_Issue_and_Word_Razor_Solution. Regards, Abhishikt (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Abhishikt's comment above demonstrates the fact that he refuses to accept the discussion as supported, despite the fact that administrator, User:Master of Puppets declared it so. In recent news, the discussion regarding the tag was also closed today, with User:Abhishikt receiving another warning from a different user. I also do hope that you will take the time to read the discussion and evaluate the situation. Thanks for taking the time to review the situation! With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

just FYI: Anupam has controversially removed this tag multiple times in the past, which was hated by multiple editors - Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_4#Removing the NPOV dispute tag??? Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME?????????? Abhishikt (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was from over one month ago and is not relevant to the current situation, since the issues have been resolved as delineated by the exhibits I provided above. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Response

• I've only had a chance to have a quick look. It would be helpful if you folks could tell me (as briefly as possible) what the issue is as regards neutrality. What point of view is (potentially) being pushed? What are the concerns? Also, I note that the article is about militant atheism as a fact - the actual philosophy/belief and application of that belief, and also about militant atheism as a term - the use of the term as a form of potentially negative grouping/labelling. There are tensions within the article because it is attempting to do two different things. It's like trying to combine Jew and Jew in the same article. It is easier and clearer to deal with the two concepts in separate articles, summarising and linking to each article as appropriate. I suspect that the treatment of the negative connotations of the term alongside the actual philosophy are at the root of the NPOV dispute, though wait to hear your views on that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply SilkTork. For a neutral perspective of the situation, I would contact, User:Master of Puppets, the administrator who is reviewing the article. Several parties have worked out potential issues with the article, namely the Introduction and Word Razor. There was no consensus for splitting the page into two separate articles. However, the issues have been resolved and recently closed, as evidenced here and here. The main issue here is that User:Abhishikt does not respect the decisions made at these two closed discussions and despite multiple requests, refuses to delineate other specific issues that he has with the article, in violation of WP:STICK and WP:NPOVD, both the main issues here. As such, he has been cautioned, not only by myself, but by other editors as well (e.g. example one, example two). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the split discussion, Anupam. The split proposal was not the same as I am suggesting, though it is interesting to note that there is a strong view that the article as currently constructed is problematic. The discussion had exactly equal !votes and comments on both sides of the discussion, so while it may be read that there was no consensus for a split it can also be read that there was no consensus to keep the article intact. Closing when there was no conclusion wasn't helpful as the matter is unresolved. I also note that there are ongoing concerns with the POV issues, so that matter is not closed either. Rather than direct me to someone else, can I again ask that Anupam and Abhishikt, as the main parties in this dispute, explain concisely your concerns.

I will move this discussion to Talk:Militant atheism as it is more appropriate there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply User:SilkTork. The method you suggested for splitting the article, into a discussion about the term and the concept has actually not been discussed so if you're interested in pursuing that further, you might be interested in starting a discussion. I do not have any specific concerns to address to you. I noticed that Abhishikt had posted a 3RR discussion on your talk page so I sought to clarify the situation. As for the article, over the past few months, several parties have posted suggestions for improvement of the article and any concerns and we have worked to fix anything problematic. User:Master of Puppets, the administrator who is reviewing the progress on this page has noted this and continues to review changes to this article. My simple concern is that User:Abhishikt respect the collaborative process occurring here, rather than drive-by tag the article without raising any specific concerns as he has done, simply because he does not like the consensus of other editors here. I am committed to this process, and many of my proposals have been rejected here as well. However, I do not rehash issues which have already obtained consensus or edit war because I simply do not like a change. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

POV in "Militant atheism regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated"

Is it not POV to have a quote from a jesuit priest making its way into the lede as "Militant atheism regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated"? (I don't think the sentence even makes a lot of sense). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely agree. And it's a bigger prpoblem than that. The real problem with the lead is that it slides from "Miltant atheism is a term used ..." to "Militant atheism is ...". And then, by sleight of hand, the "new atheists", who have been described as militant atheists, are tarred with the same brush as the soviets etc., who espoused something they themselves called militant atheism and did indeed want to propagate a doctrine. The lead should be very careful to avoid assuming that anything that has been said about "militant atheism" by commentators of various hues is true, and that anything that has been described as "militant atheism" is the same as other things to which that label has been applied. The present version is far too dogmatic, and is guilty of turning one flavour of opinion into established fact. The version proposed by JimWae above is much better. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite, IRWolfie. Human intention is misrepresented when motives are attributed to a doctrine. And I agree, Snalwibma, JimWae's version was good, though I have a minor quibble: the word 'punished' should be 'persecuted' because punish implies wrongdoing or breach of law. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that statement actually. The other [supporting that assertion] actually discusses the New Atheists. Specifically, the source states the following:

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.

As such, it is inappropriate to remove the fact, as User:IRWolfie- suggested or modify the statement to only include state régimes, as User:JimWae suggested. Also, the fact that the author of the reliable encyclopædia was a Catholic does not matter because he was writing for an objective audience. The same author also stated that "atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned)." Furthermore, the encyclopædia is published from a secular organisation, not a religious one. I also object to User:JimWae's revision because it removes the assertion that militant atheism holds religion to be harmful, which is buttressed by three sources! While it may be tempting to accept his revision, we must keep in mind WP:RS and WP:V. For example, User:JimWae's insertions on "not advocate punishing religious people" is not supported by a reliable source. I hope this comment brings about some dialogue. Thanks for all of your efforts to ameliorate this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)