Talk:Militant atheism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Griswaldo (talk | contribs)
→‎Uneven treatment: I'm at the end of my rope with this crap
→‎An aside: removing defamatory section - please do not restore it. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like more information.
Line 744: Line 744:


::I'm at the end of my rope with these antics. [[User:Lionelt]] is now going around [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=452355321&oldid=452323755 trying to drum up support against me personally] at talk pages he has never edited before but clearly found in my edit history. I've reported him to [[WP:WQA]] but I'm not sure how much longer I can tolerate this kind of crap. Why is it being tolerated?[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm at the end of my rope with these antics. [[User:Lionelt]] is now going around [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=452355321&oldid=452323755 trying to drum up support against me personally] at talk pages he has never edited before but clearly found in my edit history. I've reported him to [[WP:WQA]] but I'm not sure how much longer I can tolerate this kind of crap. Why is it being tolerated?[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== An aside ==

I must congratulate anupam on their extension of [[WP:AGF|good faith]] towards IP addresses who editwarred to add text to the article - coincidentally, exactly the same text that anupam wanted to add! Lesser wikipedians would assume that it was somebody logged out to avoid 3RR.<br>Unfortunately, my reserves of good faith do not run quite so deep. I have some concerns about another account which was created during a period of intense debate on this page; the account owner turned their userpage from redlink to blue within a few minutes, and an hour after account creation they came to this page to !vote (casting the same !vote as anupam, coincidentally) in the first of a series of edits showing precocious mastery of wikipedia markup and policy. More cynical folk might be concerned that this is an attempt at ballot-stuffing by sockpuppet. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:Hello User:Bobrayner, from the start of the [[Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_3#Split_article.3F|first RfC]], there have been a number of single purpose accounts involved in many of the discussions here. I am unsure of whether you are accusing me of being the IP Address or one of the single purpose accounts but you are more than welcome to pursue this further at [[WP:SPI]] if you feel that way. I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::Anupam seems to have accidentally performed a series of edits which moved this section back into the middle of a busy and unrelated thread, where fewer people would comment on it. I have restored it where others might see it and respond to it. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Now, about the supicion of sockpuppetry, let's start at the beginning. This is a complete biography of turnsalso's life as an [[WP:SPA|SPA]] on Militant Atheism. There are other SPAs; we may discuss those later, if you wish.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Turnsalso 21:00, 27 June] Turnsalso account is created.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Turnsalso&oldid=436561446 21:37, 27 June] Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=436565708 22:05, 27 June] Turnsalso !votes "'''Keep; oppose split'''", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage!
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Turnsalso&oldid=436567087 22:14, 27 June] After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extedned that courtesy to any other users in the last year.
:::*In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by [[User_talk:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]], whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=437968053 01:35, 6 July] Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439193827 03:22, 13 July] Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439221270 08:07, 13 July] Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote)
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439223439&oldid=439222725 08:29, 13 July] Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439286803&oldid=439286110 18:07, 13 July] Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439286803&oldid=439286110 18:07, 13 July] Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439292669 18:49, 13 July] Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. ''One minute'' after that, Anupam edits the article, then [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=next&oldid=439296688 a few minutes] later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439304125&oldid=439303853 19:40, 13 July] Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439304125&oldid=439303853 20:03, 13 July] Anupam repeats this controversial revert.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439306187&oldid=439305595 20:16, 13 July] Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439469795 18:21, 14 July] Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439471195 18:29, 14 July] Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "''revert until the issue is settled''".
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439471754&oldid=439471346 18:32 14 July] Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439472442 18:36, 14 July] Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's timestamps.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_4#I_suggest_we_request_formal_mediation 14:14, 15 July] Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439643535 17:47, 15 July] For turnsalso, reverting man jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439645285 18:01, 15 July] Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=439665054 20:19, 15 July] Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval).
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=440412577 03:25, 20 July] Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors.
:::*Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=440936701 opposes] a little later.
:::*20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra '''support''' of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=441774233] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=445577230 23:43, 18 August] Turnsalso's directly support's anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth?
:::*Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping [[WP:OWN|anupam's preferred wording]] All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes.
:::*IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=446228514 16 minutes later], Turnsalso is there to support anupam.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=446694804 19:33, 25 August] After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution.
:::*Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=446695828 turnsalso supports].
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=446708771 21:04 25 August] Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=450162205 23:27, 12 September] Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=450817592 16:06, 16 September] Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=450995829 18:01, 17 September] Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=451427370&oldid=451390383 02:25, 20 September] 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=451389896&oldid=451386495 Anupam has made]. The revert is repeated at [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=451429839&oldid=451428536 02:47] and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=451430508&oldid=451430098 02:53]. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape the clutches of 3RR.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=451448466&oldid=451447455 05:46, 20 September]: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters.
:::*Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid [[WP:3RR|3RR]].
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451516355 16:31, 20 September] turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451520581 16:59, 20 September] bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry.
:::*40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451522530 appears to acknowledge] the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451533240 bizarrely refactors other people's comments] to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary ''acknowledges'' it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451537008 18:51, 20 September] Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451538931 19:04, 20 September] Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit.
:::*[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=451722298 20:06, 21 September] Turnsalso '''opposes''' the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap.
:::*There are a handful other relevant diffs which I omitted for lack of time. For instance, the edits where turnsalso went to the talkpage of anupam's preferred administrator, to ask for their intervention, although turnsalso had never interacted with that admin before.
:::To conclude: When anupam approaches 3RR on the article, somebody else is always there to help - either turnsalso or a mysterious IP address steps in to make ''exactly the same revert''. When anupam is in trouble on the talkpage, Turnsalso suddenly appears to provide support votes when they're most needed. The editing times show a series of remarkable coincidences, and it's very surprising that a new [[WP:SPA|SPA]] performs exactly the same edits as a long-term pov-pusher! I'm skeptical that checkuser will show much; I think Anupam has the wit to hide a spare editwarring account quite well - perhaps using a proxy or an iphone or whatever. Alternatively, maybe it's a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet. Tag-teaming. Whatever. I merely present the diffs above, and let others draw their own conclusions. Is this a duck? Does it quack? You decide. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:26, 25 September 2011

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with that statement actually. The other source supporting that assertion actually discusses the New Atheists, with reference to their desire to spread their ideology. 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 to 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, AnupamTalk 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the change. There are a great many Jesuit scholars in a great many fields. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems to be guilty of the problem where mentioning two things in one article seems to equal "tarring them with the same brush." One group actually called their policy "militant atheism," and the phrase could be re-worded to refer to that movement only. The same conclusions were drawn to apply the term to New Atheism, yes, but that's why the article only says "has been applied," rather than "militant atheism is now called New Atheism." It still sounds, like so many topics before, like the only acceptable way to say it would be "some people have applied the term to the New Atheism movement in a pathetic attempt to discredit them, but the foolishness of that concept is obvious." Turnsalso (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a priest does not automatically make a source questionable, nor do we automatically find atheists to be WP:QS. Considering a consensus was recently reached on the lede that would dictate that this discussion to change the lede falls under WP:STICK.– Lionel (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat my points not yet addressed in the CLOSED discussion above: 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", "COMBATS every religion AS a harmful aberration" (not as a distinguishing mark from moderate atheism but from tolerant atheism - also emphasis on "combats"), 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 by indulging in an obviously false WP:SYNTH. Sure, it's true that "militant atheists" think religion is harmful, but many other people (non-militant atheists and theists) think it harmful also, at least sometimes. 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.

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 activities.[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]

The term "punishment" means a negative consequence applied by an entity with authority upon a person (or group of people) for doing something considered wrong. Persecution can be any systematic mistreatment - even by a group with no authority to punish. The Soviets did not consider it mistreatment, they considered it (rightly or wrongly) as punishment for offenses against the separation of church and state. However, even putting "persecution" in will lead to an improvement over the present 2nd sentence. "New Atheists" advocate neither persecution of religious groups nor punishment for religious activities.--JimWae (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a change to your proposed version. As I said below, it reads much better than the current tortured wording. And with this much dissension, why do people keep removing the POV tag? I'm restoring it. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, nowhere in this article does anything state that New Atheism advocates violence against religious groups. Nowhere. The second-sentence issue can just as easily be resolved by moving the first clause of that sentence into the lead sentence, as Snalwibma suggested. The rest of the introduction, however, does not merit the enormous amount of editing you've given it. Turnsalso (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wae's introduction does'nt mention information about most of the article. The version below that I commented on reads much better. As an Orthodox Jew, I oppose Mr. Wae's version and support the one most people are supporting below. Jwaxman1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Binksternet's revision

How about this:

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. From its first use in 1894, the term primarily refers to the doctrine advocating the propagation of atheism among the masses, as well as the combating of religion as a harmful aberration, which was often undertaken by atheist states. This application of the term was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism, and significant in the Soviet Union, and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The concept of militant atheism was applied but not so named during the French Revolution.

The term militant atheist has been applied historically to political thinkers. Recently it has been used, often pejoratively, to describe New Atheists who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers. The term has been used indiscriminately against those who question religious authority and against those who question the existence of God.

This version resolves the dilemma, unmentioned so far, of how the first use of militant atheism was in 1894 but the earlier French Revolution has been described as an example. This version substitutes "New Atheists" for the names of the people, because the lead section is a summary of the article body. This version has no citations because everything it says is supported in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to your version of the introduction, with the exception that the French Revolution is not listed in continuity with the other examples. Could we comprise and put them in continuity? If others support this prospective version, then I would have no problem in accepting it. Also, I do think that references will be necessary for the introduction; this is a controversial article so at first glace, if people don't see references, they might try to alter the introduction against the prospective consensus we might build. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is a good example of a featured article that also includes references in its introduction. By the way, I moved your revision to a new section so as to avoid confusion with mine. Thanks for your efforts here! I look forward to a response from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot leave the casual reader to assume that the term was used during the French Revolution when it was not. How should we prevent this? Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Binksternet! Thanks for your reply. On what basis do you believe that the term was not used during the French Revolution itself? Also, the introduction doesn't state that the term was used by the revolutionists themselves, rather it sates that the concept was significant in the French Revolution. As such, I don't think this should be a problem, whether the term was in vogue during that time period or not. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, the article says 1894 is the first known usage, but it also says some French people "charged" each other with the accusation of militant atheism. If the latter is true, then 1894 falls away and something about 100 years earlier comes to light, in the French language. Whatever it is, the article must be fixed before the lead section can be correct. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Could you please provide me with the quote and reference that supports the latter assertion? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points about above proposals:

  • Here is an 1882 usage, and here an 1885, and 20 by 1890.
  • I had corrected several typos/misspellings in the refs - they are back after Anupam's revert to the earlier lede
  • Militant atheism does not confine itself to propagating atheism to the masses - and the sources say no such thing.
  • What distinguishes state atheism is that, besides using propaganda to promote atheism, it frequently made/makes various religious activities crimes and denies what are commonly considered to be religious freedoms.
  • "New Atheists" do not confine themselves to not advocating violence - they also do not advocate persecution, nor punishment, nor making religious activities crimes
  • The first use is not so important that it has to be in the first paragraph - and we have little info on HOW it was FIRST used (perhaps even before 1882) - esp, on whether it included state atheism or not.
  • if the first usage was in 1882, the term itself was NOT used as an integral part of Marxism - though it was adopted by Lenin. I cannot see why both Marxism-Leninism (or the Easter egg Marxist–Leninist atheism) AND the Soviet Union need to be part of the first paragraph - especially given the length of some of the sentences
  • the Soviet Union is the FORMER Soviet Union
  • Many people will not know that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the Cultural Revolution of China (or: Chinese Cultural Revolution).
  • IF militant atheism is a term and not a well-defined concept, it is misleading to say "The concept of militant atheism was applied but not so named during the French Revolution". The term was applied retroactively to the French Revolution - at least by 1892. Historically, its primary application has been in connection with state atheism - it is only since about the time of Madalyn Murray O'Hair that it has been much applied to atheISTS who speaks out for atheism & works to achieve separation of Church and State Life 1964 -- though even in 1886 it was applied that way to Charles Bradlaugh
  • "The term militant atheIST has been applied historically to political thinkers" does not say much - it is a lot of words with little to say.--JimWae (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "which was often undertaken by atheist states" is kind of hanging there - and it is unclear whether "which" refers back to the the closest previous clause, the one before that one, or to both. "Historically, the primary application has been to atheist states, in which..." --JimWae (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make great points. Can you compose the JimWae version of the lead? Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In time, I will write another. Most of my comments apply also to Anupam's version above. Meanwhile, looking at searches prior to 1917 for "militant atheIST" and "militant atheISM", it seems there are many examples from 1882 to 1916 (before Marxist-Leninism or the Soviet Union) that were not about state atheism, but about atheists who would not shut up. Even then, the term had no clear meaning & was little more than an epithet. The Soviets adopted the term, even embraced it - so much so that it might be called the atheist militia. With Madalyn Murray, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of the New Atheists, the term's application no longer focuses as much on state atheism. This has implications for the order of treatment in the article - AND raises questions again about the extent of coverage of state atheism WHEN that topic is ALREADY covered extensively in many other articles. --JimWae (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Binksternet's revision to be quite encyclopedic and well-written. Regarding JimWae's points, however, I must ask a few questions.
  • Point 3: Is there a source one can provide stating that New Atheism does not advocate its own propagation? If this is such a great misconception, then surely something has been said to debunk it.
  • 4-5: What, exactly, is the purpose in pointing out that there are differences between New Atheism and state atheism as discussed in this article? The article does not attempt to synthesize the two, nor does it say anywhere that New Atheists advocate violence or that they endorse the policies of the USSR.
  • 6: A disclaimer, such as "though the exact term was not used by Marx" would suffice to alleviate the confusion there, would it not? Just the same as it does of the French Revolution?
  • 7: The Soviet Union was not, however, the former Soviet Union when it endorsed its policies and the name "militant atheism;" it was the Soviet Union.
  • 8: I agree with that. Would one support calling it the Cultural Revolution instead?
  • 9-10: It could be said quite easily that the term was applied retroactively to the policies during the French Revolution and the period following. The reason it was applied there was because of the policies of active suppression of religion and advocacy of atheism by the state. Why, then, is it misleading? Furthermore, the application of the term to outspoken individuals, such as Bradlaugh, the author and politician you mentioned, shows this usage is almost as old as the term itself. If so, why does point 10 "not say much?" By the looks of it, you had only just verified it by your inclusion of a source.
I look forward very much to a reply clearing some of these up. Turnsalso (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this point: What, exactly, is the purpose in pointing out that there are differences between New Atheism and state atheism as discussed in this article? The article does not attempt to synthesize the two, nor does it say anywhere that New Atheists advocate violence or that they endorse the policies of the USSR. If what you say is correct then state atheism and New Atheism belong in two separate articles, since they only share a term, but nothing conceptually. I happen to favor that approach, but apparently there is much resistance to it. Will you champion it, given what you have written?Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was not my intended meaning. That they do not endorse the same methods does not mean that they share nothing conceptually. The two things called by this name have in common a hostile attitude toward religion and the belief that it is especially harmful and would do well to be eliminated, for a start. The term is something more than just an appellation; there is still a reason behind its application to these two entities, and therefore reason to cover both of the predominant uses. Perhaps I should have said "equate" rather than "synthesize." Turnsalso (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimWae, the part your assessment relevant to my compromise version, is for the most part, incorrect, and furthermore, you have acknowledged that you do not have references that support your claims. If you looked at the references that qualified the statement regarding the "propagating atheism," you would find that it is a factual statement. And once again, this article is not about state atheism exclusively, but about the ideology of militant atheism, which was applied to some atheist states; an atheist state could exist, without promoting militant atheism. Your version of the introduction eliminates defining the ideology of militant atheism as given by several references and summarized in the Concepts section of the article; the lede should define the ideology and then talk about its Application, which parallels the structure of the article, namely the headings listed in the article's table of contents. Furthermore, contrary to your opinion, militant atheism is an integral part of Marxism-Leninism, as supported by the consequent references. For example, Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion, specifically states:

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.

When discussing content, you must keep in mind WP:RS, rather than your original research. You assert that many people do not know about the Cultural Revolution and for this reason, it should be removed from the paragraph. That argument does not hold any water whatsoever, as this is an encylopædia. Moreover, removing the information on the concept of militant atheism, the Cultural Revolution, French Revolution, and political thinkers, violates WP:LEDE, which states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Your revision of the introduction fails to do this. If the term "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" is not as common, however, I would not mind compromising and changing it to just "Cultural Revolution." Your addition of the idea of "punishments" is not only unsourced, but is inaccurate. Even in the United States, individuals can be punished for violating the separation of church and state. The proper word choice, given in my introduction, is "violence." Rather than constructing a new version, I would consider suggesting some alterations to the compromise version I suggested which has addressed the concerns of several people here. Despite the fact that the current introduction was closed by the administrator as supported, I have worked to forumulate a new one that addresses the concerns people have had; as I am being accommodating, I also would hope, that you too, will also be willing to compromise and see the merit in some of my statements as well. I have found your arguments regarding the dates compelling and have removed that statement from the compromise version of the introduction. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anupam. "Even in the United States, individuals can be punished for violating the seperation of church and state." Can you provide some sources for that? I am truly curious. Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question, User:ArtifexMayhem. In recent news, for example, a Flordia schoolteacher was suspended from his position for violating the separation of Church and state. This case, however, was later appealed. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


6 quick notes:

  • To more than one: What part of "Militant atheism does not confine itself to propagating atheism to the masses - and the sources say no such thing" says militant atheism does not propagate atheism????? My point, which has been misread by several, is that they do not confine themselves to "the masses" - and no source makes reference to "the masses"
  • The statement that I said I do not have references for is not in my proposal
  • When I get to it, I would revise "punishment" to something like "making many religious activities crimes"
  • given the usage prior to 1917, we need to consider moving state atheism further down in the article, & reducing its content since it is already extensively covered in other articles
  • "You assert that many people do not know about the Cultural Revolution and for this reason, it should be removed from the paragraph." is ANOTHER misread of what I wrote
  • To call punishment for crime "violence" is POV - even if we disagree with making the action a crime. The official Soviet policy was a "suppression", and placing legal restrictions on activities by churches. That violence may have resulted does not make it policy. Can you point to your best support for using the term "violence" about state atheism (perhaps in France?). Mentioning that "New atheists" do not promote violence, ignores that they also do not promote many things less than violence--JimWae (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand very clearly everything you said, but Soviet state militant atheism needs to remain mentioned in the lead, and this seems just like common sense, since it was probably the most active and radical application of this ideology (and they also seem to have enjoyed calling themselves "militant atheists", since they had the "The League of Militant Atheists", and personally I think there could even be a mention about this league in the lead, but it might not be necessary). Also, the proposals (written by Anupam and Binksternet) do not claim the militant atheism confined itself only to propaganda among the masses, they only state this was an important element. Some sources regarding propaganda among the masses by militant atheists: "...Propaganda came into active play. Engels advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the end of the eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people...It is essential to give these masses the greatest variety of atheist propaganda material...", "In this propaganda a leading role was played by the League of Militant Atheists...The League conducted a widespread propaganda campaign against religion by all accessible means such as the press (eg periodicals with mass circulation, embracing the entire country...", "And our atheism is militant atheism...We shall boldly carry our propaganda of atheism to the toiling masses", "This organized and militant atheism works untiringly by means of its agitators, with conferences and projections, with every means of propaganda secret and open , among all classes, in every street", "Lenin, writing in March, 1923, stated that there were "departments and State Institutions which carry on the work of militant atheism among the masses,"". Cody7777777 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to dialectical materialism?

In reading comments on this page, and the article itself, I am struck by the absence of the qualifier 'dialectical' preceding 'materialism' when applied as a description of the Marxist-Leninist analytical methodology. It may be that I'm just old, or unfashionable, but 'materialism' or materialist anything is not the same thing as Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism. I suggest checking of sources to ensure this isn't an error of exegesis. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter, thanks for your comments. I actually wikilinked the word "materialism" to "dialectical materialism" so I hope that resolves your concern. Sources 8 and 9, given above, which I recently added, only use the word "materialism," however. As you have not yet given your decision there, could you please proceed to do so? I'm sure that any input you'll give will be valuable as was your Word Razor, and I would love to hear from different voices. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anupam

No, Wikilinking this article to another Wikipedia article that misrepresents dialectical materialism almost as badly as this article just heightens my sense of the malaise that has overtaken Wikipedia.

I had hoped to avoid ‘voting’ on any re-wording of the introduction because I believe the content of the article is so hopelessly skewed in favour of a simple-minded treatment of Soviet Marxism-Leninism that it does not shed any light on the Soviet ideological methodology for discriminating against religion (as opposed to discriminating against theism). Moreover, other parts of the article reflect a rather naïve and narcissistic American conception of debates between organised religions and atheists. And finally, insisting on linking all instances of militant atheist activities with Soviet Marxism-Leninism, the way it stands now, is shameful misrepresentation of all atheists who never were Marxist-Leninists (shades of McCarthyist guilt by association, or the precedent Scarlet Letter syndrome).

My reticence in this regard is heightened by the presence of one or more administrators watching this debate who are apparently devoted to a peculiar form of blinkered American anti-intellectualism about the topic of atheism in general, and militant atheism in particular.

You have been very polite in requesting my vote, so I will tell you why I abstain. When arguing ‘Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion’, all human agency is removed from the hostility and transferred to a catchphrase instead. This is just wrong, no matter how many people say it’s so. Militancy is a human activity, not a property of theory. It can be advocated in writings and justified by theory, but must always be carried out by human agents. In the context of the article, the best that can be said for the sources insisting on the objective existence of militant atheism is that the authors have created a nonsense catch-all phrase devoid of specific meaning. To put this another way, there were and are militant atheists, but there never was or is a militant atheism independent of specific people in specific contexts. Consider for comparison and contrast the argument that there is no militant Christianity or Islam, just militant Christians and Islamists.

In order for the term ‘militant atheism’ to have an objective meaning, it must have characteristics that are common to a broad group of militant atheists. For that to be at all feasible, there must be evidence that these militant atheists regarded themselves as such rather than as willing agents of terrorism excused by the title, as is obviously the case for the Soviet security police (and for security police of any flavour at any time in any community, including that of Wikipedia).

How does that relate to dialectical materialism?

The Soviet recourse to Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism was an attempt to reach a synthesis or accommodation when faced with a thesis and its antithesis. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideologues started from the assumption that concepts contain within them inherent contradictions which are to be reconciled by the method of dialectical materialism: arguing thesis and antithesis until a logical synthesis emerges, originally in the style of Socratic dialogues, but increasingly based on existing Marxist-Leninist syntheses. But even Lenin realised that persuasion alone was not enough to allow his ideals to gain ground. For that he had to resort to coercion and ignore the fact that his stated materialism was really an idealism of the kind he so openly and loquaciously despised.

How does this relate to the topic of militant atheism?

To understand anything at all about Soviet state atheism, it must first be understood that the policy and execution of Soviet state-sponsored atheism was developed as the synthesis between the theory that religion is a vestige of class-based bourgeois society designed to naturalise the immiseration of the proletariat, and the antithesis that vast numbers of the proletariat were given to religious sentiment. The synthesis was to overthrow the organised power structures of religion (the churches) the same way that the bourgeois state had been overthrown (violently and implacably). Soviet atheism is therefore the product both of dialectical materialism and clumsy, heavy-handed suppression of a type inevitable in a dictatorship no matter what the stated ideological aims might be (like the clumsy, heavy-handed intercession of administrators here). Let’s not forget that the practice of militant atheism was always carried out by specific people acting under specific influences, not necessarily as a consequence of reading dogmatic rhetoric.

Why don’t the cited sources say all of this?

Because the cited sources are the easiest ones to hand, with the more insightful ones being harder to access and understand. Because you’d need to read and understand Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, and other Soviet ideologues, all of whom wrote long and turgid prose that some people devote entire careers to explaining and extending in ways never contemplated by the originators.

However, that is no excuse for the simplistic treatment of the topic here, and convinces me that the conspicuous absence of Marxist-Leninist theoreticians in the sources makes this article hopelessly one-eyed and not at all edifying about the stated topic or the details mentioned in the defence of vacuous agenda.

Why don’t I cite these sources myself?

It would require considerable time and effort to summarise the relevant passages, and then to argue their relevance on this page. The ease with which some editors and administrators can and do step in to trash serious attempts at explaining phenomena they don’t understand makes me think it’s not worth the while. In fact, my experiences with Wikipedia convince me that it is a place devoid of rules, but beholden to arbitrary enforcement of opinions, whether by administrator fiat or the ridiculous reductio ad absurdum of the ‘consensus’ mechanism, which is repeatedly and stunningly used to overturn all evidence and rationality on the basis of majority votes to override these.

In other words, Wikipedia enables almost everyone to write whatever bullshit they can find a citation for, and to insist on qualitative equivalence of sources that are actually quite unequal in terms of their relevance or reputability.

I’m not going to hand over my time voluntarily to be pursued by Wikipedia’s own Stalinist minions about not playing nicely when it comes to saying it like I see it, and I recognise I don’t have any special status that should give me the right to tell anyone else what to think, do, or say. But I do arrogate to myself the right not to participate in what I perceive to be a farcical exercise in rewriting history and suborning rationality to personal and cultural biases.

Why do I comment here now? As a result of recent disagreements with a number of intellectually vacuous (or should that be anti-intellectual) administrators, I have formed the view that Wikipedia is a playground that allows anyone to do anything they bloody well want to, providing they can get away with it. To wit, superstition has been accorded respectable status in some articles, and editors with personal agenda are able to recruit and direct other editors, including to create personal vanity pages for them. So long as this all happens under a veneer of Wikipedia guidelines and consensus, with the collaboration of administrators, it’s regarded as legitimate in a way I cannot support, even if the people regulating this place do.

There are so many examples of this kind of behaviour, and many others that I see as entirely selfish and destructive of the encyclopaedic endeavour, that I have chosen to preserve my efforts here to encyclopaedic work that has some chance of not being undermined by other people’s agenda, by children pretending at being arbiters (administrators), or by accepting any premise that already contains conclusions about what should be am open question or inquiry.

My reply to you here is given in the vague hope that if only one editor reads it and gains from it any kind of motivation to oppose pop culture factoids, Beevorian counterknowledge, or ideologically driven bullshit, I will have done more with this one comment than by rearranging a million words of crap into slightly more eloquent crap.

Parting words I announced some time ago that I would withdraw from the controversial debates here until I had gained some clarity about Wikipedia purposes and rules. I believe I have now gained the necessary insights to form my own views about what useful contributions I can and want to make. These do not include being patronised by adolescents of any age, or being shepherded into processes that are absurdly flawed.

So, while I keep an eye on this page, I thought I’d abstain from the more passionate hair-splitting. It seems to me that integrity and erudition will always fail in any controversial discussion at Wikipedia because these concepts are alien to most editors and administrators I’ve encountered. And that’s OK if that’s what they want Wikipedia to reflect (which it does). But I don’t intend to participate in ideological revisionism — reinterpreting history and knowledge to fit a particular ideological point of view, based on wrongheaded ideas about American democracy and Wikipedia ‘consensus’, which, in practice, and under the guidance of the Wikipedia ‘guardians’, bears only a slim resemblance to the concepts of democracy and consensus that applies anywhere else.

That said, I wish you well, Anupam, but I think this article is already so mired in re-interpreting history to suit a low-brow, Walt Disney culture (an all-singing, all-dancing cartoon extravaganza about Soviet nihilism, featuring American accents and assumptions only) that arguing about the introduction while the contents of the article are demonstrably risible in many passages is a daunting prospect.

I would suggest that the controversy has to blow itself out, like all hot air, before thoughtful people can make the necessary changes to both sources and prose that might make it read less like the kind of hasty and half-hearted exegesis of text books, regurgitated to satisfy a set assignment, that I remember from my high school days, and that I see in so many Wikipedia articles today. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments here, I would like to see you rewrite this article in a sandbox. I get the impression your version would hew more closely to scholarly sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough response, User:Peterstrempel. I appreciated several of your suggestions in your Word Razor and implemented them: see Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. I am caught up with some work right now and therefore, I will offer some more comments later. In response to User:Binksternet's suggestion, I can see where you're coming from, but think it would be best to work together here, as the reviewing administrator, User:Master of Puppets suggested. I hope both of you have a good night. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be written to advance a particular viewpoint

This article reads as if intended to advance the argument that prominent atheist writers of today (such as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc.) are the heirs to a lineage of persecutors of religion. It juxtaposes the violent persecution of religious people under Communist regimes with the nonviolent argumentation of these modern writers, suggesting that there is some common cause between them.

Of course, the article does not actually come out and say that Dawkins or Dennett persecute religious people or even advocate doing so, because that would be a flat lie. Rather, by juxtaposing Dawkins and the Communists, and claiming that they are both part of this rubric of "militant atheism", it creates the impression of guilt by association.

There is a lot of good material in this article about the persecution of religious people under Communist regimes, which were of course officially atheist. That material should be kept and moved to articles about those regimes' human rights violations or the history of religion in those countries. However, it must not be juxtaposed with modern, living writers who, while they firmly and clearly state their belief that religions teach falsehood, also firmly oppose persecution on the basis of religion. If nothing else, it is within epsilon of a BLP violation.

I think the underlying problem here is that much of the article's text is written as if militant atheism is a thing, as the saying goes. It should be made thoroughly clear that, today, "militant atheism" is largely a pejorative term and not a label for an objectively existing category containing the Bolsheviks, the French Revolutionary "Cult of Reason", and today's New Atheism. —FOo (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for anything called "militant," in today's day and age. That said this entry should not exist. See below.Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fubar Obfusco, I would encourage you to take a look at the Concepts section of the article, and look at the references which discuss how philosophers have delineated the ideology. As far as it being made clear that today, militant atheism is used as a pejorative term - that is being discussed right now. Your comments in the current discussion regarding that issue might be helpful. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. Hans Adler 21:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with your comments 100%. This article is pretty much a Lingo puzzle New Athiest:Militant Atheist:Stalinist. It's a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia, and no amount of minor editing will make it ok. Deletion would be the best thing at this point, but since it seems like there's a group of editors who won't accept that, probably the only alternative is to leave it up with a permanent "neutrality disputed" tab Jkhwiki (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the amount of discussion that has gone on about most of the topics you've expressed concern over. There is no juxtaposition here, as administrators have even declared. If you wish to dispute this further, there is a topic already open, primarily regarding the introduction, on this very talk page: Talk:Militant_atheism#Introduction.2C_Part_II. Turnsalso (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to dispute. The juxtaposition is obvious. Remove New Atheism and we'd have a good, well researched article merge the rest where appropriate. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Remove New Atheism. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly so, but close. This entry should not exist at all. Some of the material belongs in New Atheism and the rest belongs in State atheism. Nothing belongs here.Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Griswaldo, you participated in a recent discussion held by a plethora of editors, which determined that there was no consensus to split the article. Rehashing the same issue, despite knowing that there is a strong opposition to doing so is not helpful. As User:Turnsalso suggested above, I would encourage you to discuss the current issue of the introduction, and offer your comments there. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to this discussion I assume. First of all WP:CCC is always relevant in regards to prior discussions. Also, while opinions appeared to be split at the time, three of the editors taking your side in this are single purpose accounts with no editing outside of this talk page, and in a couple of cases no editing outside that particular vote. The rest of those opposed appear to be, by the looks of their talk pages, conservative and orthodox Christians of different varieties. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative or orthodox Christian, but it is also doubtfully a coincidence that these are exactly the groups of people who most vehemently oppose New Atheism in mass culture. I am hardly convinced, in other words that the "non consensus" you mention was even remotely representative of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Perhaps it is time for a new RfC on that same question, and one that is publicized widely.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think another RfC might be a good idea. Particularly if we can actually take into account the relative merits of the arguments, and not take consensus to be a mere vote between new accounts chiming in to say "I agree".   — Jess· Δ 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to have an article about the term "militant atheism", or on the attempts by various people to attack atheist writers as intolerant of religion. This would be comparable to the articles that Wikipedia has on the subject of racial or religious slurs, such as Papist; though perhaps the closest analogy would be Islamofascism — which is an okay article today, despite having begun badly.

Another possibility would be to move this article to a title such as "Militant atheism in the Soviet Union" or "Atheism and communism" or some such, retaining primarily the Soviet Bezbozhniki material (which is well researched, after all) and perhaps making connections with the Marxism and religion article. However, much of the history may already be dealt with in the article League of Militant Atheists.

I don't think merely removing the New Atheism material from this article is sufficient. If this article is to be about "militant atheism" as a slur, then the fact that the term is used to attack today's atheist writers is precisely on point. However, if the article is to be about historical people who actually did militant things (i.e. violence) in the name of atheism, then removing the New Atheism material may be necessary for WP:BLP reasons. —FOo (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not possible to have an article about the term "militant atheism" (in the same way that we have an article about the term "nigger", for example) because there is no such term. The terms "militant" and "atheism" exist alright, but mere juxtaposition of two terms does not automatically create a compound one. An article about "militant atheism" makes no more and no less sense than an article about "militant Christianity" discussing topics such as:
  • persecution of non-Christians in countries with a Christian majority, historically and today
  • perhaps most notably, witch-hunts and the various incarnations of the Inquisition (still active under the name Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) with phenomena such as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum
  • also Opus Dei, a sort of Vaticanic secret service which is notable for the secrecy of its members (you just don't know who is a member and who isn't) and the extreme practice of self-mortification
  • systematic discrimination of non-Christians in some countries with a Christian state religion – most blatantly in the Vatican, of course, which is even more theocratic and authoritarian than Iran or Saudi Arabia
  • the practice of many Christians, tolerated or even prescribed in many countries, to plaster gruesome depictions of an execution (crucifix) and the emblem of their religion (Latin cross, derived from the former and thus depicting an execution instrument) all over the place and especially in sensitive places such as public schools and courts of law (example: in 2009 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy's practice of putting crucifixes in all state school rooms was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights; this verdict was reversed in 2011; the German state of Bavaria has the same problem)
  • attempts to push creationism and its submarine form intelligent design into public schools, especially in the US
  • and of course the Crusades and Bush junior's War against Islam terrorism.
Come to think of it, it might be worthwhile to write this article. Hans Adler 07:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the two terms. Modified my statement above. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hans Alder, this is your own original research and is also addressed by WP:OSE. The concept of militant atheism is well established which is why several philosophers, both atheist and theist, have uniformly defined the concept, as evidenced in the "Concepts" section of the article; moreover, many historians have written on the application of the concept, as evidenced by the plethora of sources in the article. You, on your own, may not decide what is a concept or not, which it seems, you are doing here. We are to simply write a verifiable article buttressed by reliable sources. User:Griswaldo's suggestion is moot because "state atheism" is not a concept that can be held by an individual or applied; his suggestion is analogous to merging state church with Christian fundamentalism or Islamic state with Islamic fundamentalism. While a government may espouse an ideology, the government is not the ideology itself. I once again implore you to participate in the current discussion about the introduction of the article, which is will be helpful in ameliorating the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1,380 sources on Google Scholar for the term "militant atheism". NYyankees51 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 26,300 sources for the term "tall building".   — Jess· Δ 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mann jess, your argument is flawed at its root. You cannot argue with the fact that philosophers have defined "militant atheism." This article has an entire section devoted to a philosophical explanation on the concept, similar to the article on existentialism. Throughout the past few months, several editors have repeatedly explained this fact and rehashing the same canard is not productive (see WP:IDHT). I would encourage you to participate in the current discussion about the introduction of the article, which is taking place at the moment. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my argument is flawed, then so is Nyyankees'. That was my point. I'm not particularly interested in taking part in the introduction discussions again, because each time we have them it's just different versions of the same intro without any of the issues discussed previously having been addressed. In particular, we are still not making it clear that there are 2 distinct uses of the term, despite it being pointed out ad nauseum that it's a problem.   — Jess· Δ 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only fair way to include both senses is to forthrightly say in the 2nd sentence (or before) that there are 2 distinct uses of the term. The earliest usage focussed on Charles Bradlaugh and others who fought against discrimination against atheists, with an occasional reference to the French Revolution. The Soviets (decades later) adopted the term as a badge for their policy, and they went far beyond defending atheists against discrimination. Incidentally, Bagginni is just plain wrong in saying militant atheism is hostility to religion. Among the earliest applications were those regarding defenders of atheists, as can plainly be seen by anyone who examines those instances. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a source to contradict his focus on just one group of militant atheists. Such is the case when articles are about terms, in opposition to WP:NOTDIC. How this article can ever be "fixed" in any near future, I have no idea; it is a messed morass. NB: the text on the various atheist states is covered in several other articles, some of which could benefit by taking some text from those sections in this article. It is counterproductive to have extensive treatment of the same topic in so many different articles, as none of them then get the full benefit of proper editing. --JimWae (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:JimeWae, refer to WP:V, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You may personally believe that Bagginni, Walters, Rahner, et. al. are "plain wrong"; however your paragraph is simply a demonstration of original research and therefore, does not bear any weight to decisions regarding the article. This article should be based on reliable sources; as such, I have ensured that every citation in this article makes a direct reference to militant atheism, so as to keep the article neutral and verifiable. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You focussed your reply on something I had already acknowledged as not yet being achievable, given the lack of good sources "defining the term" (the part that follows "Incidentally..."). My main point is that the only way to begin to include both senses in any nearly fair way is to forthrightly say in the 2nd sentence (or before) that there are 2 distinct uses of the term - which is easily sourced, and which you have already acknowledged is worthwhile. And yes, Bagginni is still demonstrably wrong--JimWae (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, Baggini is not even giving a definition. He says "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant." One could also call flowers "pretty", but "flowery" is not a definition of "pretty", though it might be considered ONE WAY of being pretty.--JimWae (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No article is without a point of view. There is no such of a thing and the policy states that. The goal is to get as close to the idea of NPOV that one can get. The criteria being set here no article on Wikipedia to adhere to. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, treating two distinct groups of people as the same just because the same term has been applied to them, burying any differences, is not NPOV.--JimWae (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be necessary to mention this, but the term "militan atheism" appears in many sources on "Google Books" (and there are also enough sources which do not use it to refer to marxist-leninist militant atheism), and so I do not see any real problem with having an article about this concept (and in my opinion, the earlier comparison with "tall building", seems to go somewhat against "common sense"). The use of the term is not pejorative when it refers to marxist-leninists (since they have actually identified themselves in this way), but even if the use of the term is pejorative when referring to contemporary groups, like the "New Atheists", there is no problem having an article documenting about the uses of the term and concept of "militant atheism", since the term is not used as a title for the main article about "New Atheism", it is just used for explaining the uses of this term. (And in this case, it can be quite similar to the articles about the pejorative terms "Papist" and "Islamofascism", mentioned earlier by FOo, which are used for documenting the uses of those terms.) And as far as I see, the article currently does not claim there is no difference between marxist-leninist militant atheists and the "New Atheists", and they are presented separately. (And we're just showing how the sources are using the term, and if the sources are doing a mistake in using the same term for both groups, it is not our job to correct them.) But, I agree that the lead introduction should be improved to make the distinction between the two uses more clearer (like it was attempted in earlier discussions). Cody7777777 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no need to go into great detail on the histories of state atheism in this article, as there are plenty of other articles that deal with state atheism. Also, it is not a defined concept, it's a label that gets applied to distinct groups - which are NOT distinguished in this article--JimWae (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Cody7777777's comment. Many individuals identify themselves as adhering to militant atheism, e.g. League of Militant Atheists, and moreover, militant atheism was an integral part of Marxism-Leninism. I also agree with ameliorating the introduction and encourage all of you to participate in the current introduction, which addresses this issue. User:JimWae, according to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Once again, you may feel free to personally believe what you want; however, the concept has been cogently delineated by several philosophers and historians, as demonstrated in the Concepts section of the article, which is supported by several reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really wasn't my intention to provoke an acrimonious argument, so I'd hope that this can stay positive and constructive toward the encyclopedia project.

I do not think that a single "Militant atheism" article can fairly cover both the persecution of religion in the Soviet Union, and the New Atheist writers of today. This is because putting these two topics together in a single article necessarily implies a connection between them, even if that connection is not stated, or indeed disclaimed. Wikipedia does not put two merely tangentially-related subjects in a single article, especially if they are controversial. If there are two subjects commonly called (or miscalled) by the same name, we use a disambiguation page to separate them.

At the same time, I am not sure that there are enough secondary sources on the modern pejorative use of the term "militant atheism" to support an article on that topic. (In contrast, there are many secondary sources on the use of racial slurs such as "nigger"; there are even whole books about that word alone.) Of course, there are plenty of primary sources that use the expression to criticize or attack modern writers; but Wikipedia does not lean so heavily on primary sources!

So, after reading the above discussion, here is my proposal, in two parts:

  1. If there is any material about the Soviet League of Militant Atheists which is in this article but not in League of Militant Atheists, move that material there. Likewise for other major historical topics.
  2. Change this article to a disambiguation page, along the following lines:

(And so forth.)

This way, we preserve the well-researched material here by moving it elsewhere, while solving the problem that this article (and any other possible article that directly juxtaposes the two topics) implies a connection between modern, living atheist writers and historical persecution of religion. —FOo (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fubar Obfusco, you stated that you didn't intend to "provoke an acrimonious argument" here. As I mentioned above, your proposal is nothing new but is simply a rehashed version of a closed discussion (see WP:STICK). It was discussed this past summer and there was no consensus to split the article up as such. All of the references in this article discuss militant atheism, not Laïcité, secularism, etc. In fact, to include the information from these articles in the ones you mentioned constitutes a synthesis of information. Moreover, the League of Militant Atheists is just one aspect of militant atheism in the Soviet Union; it is actually not discussed in depth in this article. As User:Cody7777777 mentioned, if you want to discuss distinguishing between uses, participate in the current introduction discussion, where your comments might be helpful. I hope you have a pleasant evening. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see the sources in the article and see that it's obvious that militant atheism is a concept. As an Orthodox Jew, I'm opposed to deleting the article and splitting it. The propositions to delete this article seem to be coming from people will an agenda to delete the article because it causes personal offense.Jwaxman1 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a disamb would be futile. There are ample sources to support a standalone article "Militant atheism." It passes WP:N. – Lionel (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
after ec :::Georgia also passes WP:N, but look at Georgia. Which is the primary usage of militant atheism? For decades it would not have been state atheism, then "state atheism" was almost the only usage -- until Madalyn Murray O'Hair. And now...? --JimWae (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is justification for having an article on "militant atheism", but I also agree with the comment at the head of this thread that the article appears to have been hijacked to push an agenda. The main problem, as I see it, was extremely well described by Peterstrempel above. The way I would express it is that the nebulous and shifting concepts described by the two words "militant atheism" have been reified and turned into a bogeyman, as if there was a single thing by that name, when in fact it's just two words used by different people through the ages in different contexts, to describe different things. The analogy with "tall buildings" above is very apt. One person's tall building is another's medium-height structure. Militant is just an adjective, like tall - and there is no agreed-upon definition of what applying that adjective to the noun atheism means. And yet in the introductory paragraph we are asked to believe that there is a thing called Militant Atheism that (among other things) "regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated". The main problem lies in that introductory paragraph, which is laughable in its synthesising of various uses of the two words to create a phantom single concept. What happened to the discussion above regarding rewriting the introduction? There are several suggestions above, all of which are better than the present woeful version. Let's attend to that. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of militant atheism has been well defined by several philosophers as evidenced in the Concepts section of the article. As with any religious ideology, its application has differed throughout history, e.g. the Crusades of the Middle Ages are a much different expression of Christianity than the megachurch of today. However, both are mentioned in the same article. We must keep in mind that while we can hold our own views, we must not allow them to infiltrate the article, but rather make sure the content is verifiable and supported by reliable sources. I agree with User:Snalwibma that we should refocus the conversation back to discussing the introduction, which is taking place here and was being discussed before the new editor rehashed a previously closed thread. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have said this once or twice before: Baggini's quote does NOT define militant atheism. As far as I can see, neither does any other writer in the Concepts section (or anywhere else) define it with the same scope as this article covers. There is no unifying *concept* that the words consistently signify. --JimWae (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, JimWae. That is exactly the problem, and I too have been banging on about it for months. I still think an article about the various uses of the term "militant atheism" is justified, and that it can be done without offending against WP:NOTDICT, but the article must be honest about the lack of a single central concept. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article as it now stands is larger than any particular use of the term, and existing elaborations on the term are not definitive. The article should be split. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that nothing can be done about the article's size, but the article does not need to be split. I have to say that I do not really see what is so problematic with having an article documenting the uses of the term "militant atheism". And even if there is no single universal definition of this concept, it can still be argued that these groups had one common aim, the promotion of atheism. The main difference here, is that marxist-leninist militant atheists have used brutal methods to do this, but the new atheists are also trying to promote atheism through their books. Even if it is wrong to use the same term for both groups, this has been done by sources, so an article about "militant atheism" should try to document all uses of the term, and the distinction between these different uses can be made more clearer. Also, I think that having a larger section about soviet state militant atheism can be understandable, since it seems there are more sources referring to this type of "militant atheism". Cody7777777 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cody, this has been said a million times, but the argument you're presenting above is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTDICT. On top of that, whether or not "it can be argued that these groups had one common aim", to do so would be OR, since we don't have sources which discuss both and draw that connection on their own. We don't make articles based on 'arguments we can make' about a concept. We base articles on reliable sources, and no source we have shares our scope for this term. We're synthesizing sources to broaden our scope and draw our own connections, which is a flagrant violation of policy.   — Jess· Δ 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like we either have consensus for a split, or are fairly close to it. That consensus either needs to be acted on, or we need to start another RfC to open the discussion to the wider community.   — Jess· Δ 19:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mann jess, I hope you are not serious. We DO NOT have consensus to split this article and falsely claiming that we do is tendentious. In fact, it seems like more editors are opposed to such a split, including User:LoveMonkey, User:Turnsalso, User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777, User:Jwaxman1, myself, and possibly User:User:Snalwibma. As such, we have consensus not to split the article, which is also in support of the previous consensus. Moreover, you cannot split an article based on your own original research, which User:JimWae has admitted to. Philosophers have defined the concept of militant atheism, which is given in the CONCEPTS section of the article. I will list the definition for you, from multiple sources, which all corroborate one another. According to Atheism by philosopher Kerry S. Walters (published by Continuum International Publishing Group):

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.

According to Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions, by sociologist Phil Zuckerman (published by ABC-CLIO):

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.

According to philosopher Julian Baggini, in his book, Atheism, under the heading "Militant Atheism" (published by Sterling Publishing):

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.

According to Karl Rahner, in the encyclopaedia, Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi (published by Continuum International Publishing Group):

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.

According to Yang, in "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China" (published in the Sociology of Religion by Oxford University Press):

Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures.

User:JimWae has justified the proposition for a split claiming that "Bagginni [et. al. are] just plain wrong in saying militant atheism is hostility to religion." While it is fine for him to hold his personal views, they are NOT acceptable to be incorporated as encylcopediac information, as demonstrated by WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." As User:Cody7777777 reiterated above, and as the plethora of scholarly references I provided state, "militant atheism is an atheistic hostility to religion," an ideology which has clearly expressed itself in different ways throughout history, including the movement to liquidate houses of worship and the movement to proselytize the populace to believe that religion is a virus of the mind. In the same fashion, the Crusades were an expression of Christianity in the Middle Ages, and the megachurch is an expression of Christianity today; both are included in the same article because they both stem from the same religious ideology. The purpose of the article is to discuss militant atheism, regardless of time period, which has been done here. There was a legitimate issue, as User:Snalwibma mentioned, to revise the introduction of the article to help differentiate between some of the movements associated with militant atheism. THAT is the issue that we should be addressing here, which was the case before this closed issue was rehashed by a new editor. I hope this helps and clears up the misunderstanding that there was a consensus to split the article, because clearly, there is not. Because you want to justify a split, I suggest you do so by pointing to reliable sources because most of us are not convinced. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam, you're ignoring the points being raised. 1) Which of those sources applies the same scope to 'militant atheism' that we are? 2) Bagginni is not defining 'militant atheism'. 3) In which source is a connection drawn between state atheism and new atheism? I think my point was clear. Consensus is not a vote, so citing names isn't helpful. If there is legitimate disagreement, we need to open an RfC to the wider community.   — Jess· Δ 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, walls of text. I don't want to fuel that fire, so keeping it short: I agree with fubar, and think a split would be appropriate, as the current article seems to mash together several related (but actually different and sometimes bitterly incompatible) things, giving a pretence that they're one unified thing. They are not. bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, WP:NOTDICT does not really apply in this case, since this article is not just about describing some simple words, but it is about a concept (or an ideology/doctrine). Even if there are different definitions about it, it has nonetheless been described by sources as a concept, like in the following "The concept of militant atheism is an example of unreasonable non-belief. The militant atheist believes that there is no God, and has extreme intolerance for opposing viewpoints.", and there are other sources describing it like a doctrine or ideology. Also, we're not really claiming that there is a direct connection between "state atheism" and "new atheism", we're only documenting that "militant atheism" has been applied by sources to denote both (and this seems to me just like common sense, since it looks obvious enough), and it can be explained more clearer in the article that "new atheism" has no direct connection with "state atheism" (even if the term has been used for both). Also, as far as I knew, this sort of debates (like splitting articles), should not be repeated in less than 6 months, and I don't think it would be very different from the previous. I think it might better to use our time doing better things, like improving the article (especially the lead introduction), or other articles. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say that Baginni does not define militant atheism, my basis for saying so is not that he is wrong, but that he does not word his description in the form of a definition - he merely says he calls something "miltant atheism". Calling something something is not defining it. If I call a flower pretty, I am not defining "pretty" - though being "flowery" can be ONE WAY of being pretty. Similarly, being hostile to religion could be one way of being a "militant atheIST", but is not a definition of either militant atheism nor of a militant atheist.
  • Several of the other authors give differences between some atheists and "militant atheists". Again, noting one or two differences between 2 terms does not give a definition of how to apply the term to other groups. Also note that it is hard to find 2 authors who present the same different characteristic. (Additionally, it is demonstrable that what they point to as a difference is 1>in several case, just a (vague) "tendency" or something that "leads to" something else 2>also sometimes found (even if to a lesser degree) in the supposed non-militant group.)
  • In most situations where a group is called militant, it is not simply because they argue strenuously, but because they seek to effect some kind of social change besides just convincing others they are right. That social change could be one of furthering tolerance (ie ending discrimination against the group) or be of being so intolerant of people not of the group that it advocates punishing them.
    • To lump the New Atheists into the same group (without remarking on any distinct differences) as atheist leaders of the Soviet Union, is to belittle the suffering of the victims of the USSR.
    • Would an article on Militant Christianity include the Crusades, Aquinas, and Christian apologetics without distinction?
  • Regarding "The concept of militant atheism is an example of unreasonable non-belief. The militant atheist believes that there is no God, and has extreme intolerance for opposing viewpoints." again we have someone giving a different difference AND NB: Trafford Publishing requires authors to pay to have their books published. Self-published books are not reliable sources. --JimWae (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're incorrect as you're only selectively quoting Baggini. In the chapter titled "Militant Atheism," he goes on to state that "Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful." Regardless, the plethora of sources that I've provided above to corroborate one another, making essential claims about militant atheism, including the fact that it proselytizes, and the fact that it regards religion as being harmful/pernicious. Also, your above paragraph, which states: "In most situations where a group is called militant, it is not simply because they argue strenuously, but because they seek to effect some kind of social change besides just convincing others they are right. That social change could be one of furthering tolerance (ie ending discrimination against the group) or be of being so intolerant of people not of the group that it advocates punishing them" is NOT referenced by a reliable source at all! It's original research! And actually, the article on Christianity does mention both the Crusades and the founding of the World Council of Churches. Is this an inappropriate juxtaposition? I will answer my own rhetorical question with a "no" and this is because they are linked by the same religion/ideology, as is the actions of Marxist-Leninists (e.g. performing experiments on holy water to "disprove" religion) with the teachings of the Four Horsemen (e.g. stating that a naturalistic viewpoint is incompatible with a belief in a Creator). As such, this article should NOT be split; rather the manifestations of militant atheism should be distinguished better than the current situation. User:JimWae, would you support that? I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing to a tendency is not giving a definition, as most people have various tendencies to varying degrees as various times. He is remarking on a differences. Remarking on differences is part of what definitions do, but there is nothing there to suggest that Baggini thinks he has given a complete list of essential differences
  • There is no requirement to source comments on talk pages that try to get people to stand back from a disagreement and look at the normal basis for the use of a term, eg. calling anything "militant". I was not proposing that be included in the article. Your repeated suggestion that what I write is OR is misdirected
  • There is no article on Militant Christianity--JimWae (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JimWae, I believe your proposal above of mentioning in the second sentence that the term has been applied to two different topics merits more discussion, and could finally close these repeated SYNTH/STICK debates. Would you be willing to start a topic here on that proposal? Also, there are some responses I have to your points here.
Regarding the first: these manifold tendencies are not part of the minimal definition in the lede, which is hostility toward religion as harmful, from an atheist basis. These are corroborated by the various sources. As you have pointed out, the term has had differences in meaning at different times, but that does not mean that any commonality between the use of these appellations is irrelevant. All the sources describe those two points as describing that which is called "militant atheism," and those points are the ones mentioned here in the Wikipedia article. If you want to discuss a liberal addition of opinion to definitions, perhaps Conservapedia would be more fertile ground.
Regarding the last: Please note that Anupam didn't mention an article on militant Christianity, and the point he was trying to make by saying that the World Council of Churches and the Crusades being both mentioned in the article on Christianity is not rendered invalid by that fact. The WCC and the Crusades are two very different things, but are both considered to be Christian entities and are covered in the same article without it being "inappropriate juxtaposition." Turnsalso (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine

If "Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine", shouldn't there be some first-hand references to statements by "militant atheists" rather than second-hand interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talkcontribs) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the whole article seems to be full of strawmen, rather than anything demonstrable that would link 'New Atheists' actual statements about their goals with the enforced atheism of the (often mentioned) Soviet Union. Add to this the fact that in the short Criticism of the Term, there are two instances where the criticism is followed by counter-criticism (the statement “The Freedom From Religion Foundation, however, has been called a "militant atheist group" in The Washington Examiner” adds nothing) - almost nowhere in the rest of the article are counter-arguments added from the 'Militant Atheists'?Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rolf Schmidt, I might note that on your userpage, you have indicated that you "believe religion is harmful to society"; you have also indicated that you "imagine...no religion" and even display the no symbol over the word "God." You are entitled to your opinion but perhaps it might be creating a conflict of interest in this article, which discusses the viewpoint you hold. You've alleged that the article is "full of strawmen." However, when one looks at it, it is evident that there is an abundance of sources to buttress the statements therein. Did you not note the "Media" section of the article, which is an entire paragraph of Richard Dawkins' response to the criticism? Also in the paragraph above, did you not see his response to Michael Ruse, where Ruse is compared to Neville Chamberlain? If you can find more information, along with the corresponding references, on "Criticism of the Term," by all means, add your suggestions here and we can discuss their potential incorporation. However, please consider the information that I have just presented, as well as reading information that philosophers have written on the subject, given in the "Concepts" section of the article; like every sentence in the article, the original quotes from the academic books and journals are given in the citations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lame! Argue the point, not the person. There's no need to attack Rolf for his userboxes. It would be just as relevant to refer to your interest in Catholicism and to your attendance at United Methodist churches in order to remove you from the article per COI. Please avoid any more ad hominem attacks. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Binksternet, my comment was not an ad hominem. If you noticed, I stated that he was entitled to his opinion and moreover, I never stated that I viewed his beliefs negatively. My comment was analogous to User:Griswaldo's comment above which stated that "The rest of those opposed appear to be, by the looks of their talk pages, conservative and orthodox Christians of different varieties. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative or orthodox Christian, but it is also doubtfully a coincidence that these are exactly the groups of people who most vehemently oppose New Atheism in mass culture." The majority of the paragraph above was spent addressing his points, where I demonstrated that counter-criticism was given. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Griswaldo directed you to jump off a cliff, would you? What I continue to consider very lame is you first telling Rolf (and the world) that you think he has a conflict of interest, belittling his contribution. I think that was the more influential and egregiously wrong part of your post, more than simply addressing his points one by one. There is nobody in religious discussions who can be said to be free of some sort of interest, so lay off that line. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed people in religious discussions with little to no interests in either direction. The problem with Wikipedia is that hardcore atheists and hardcore religionists (conservative Christians for the most part) often make it completely impossible for these more neutral voices to be heard as they reenact the culture wars over and over and over again. The problem does really cut both ways. You have editors at pages like this trying to fight their religious battles by making atheists look bad, but you also have atheists at entries like Genesis creation narrative insisting that "myth" must go in the title (despite the fact that scholarship does not agree) because the stories of the bible are total "fiction." If I had my druthers none of these people would be allowed to edit religion/irreligion entries unless they were capable of leaving their culture wars at the door. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Binksternet, there is a major difference in holding a religious viewpoint and advocating the elimination of others' beliefs. I am going to restate the fact that I said he was entitled to his beliefs but I kindly asked him to reevaluate his view of the article in light of the fact that he might have a bias. I would kindly ask you to assume good faith in my actions, trying to be understanding rather than being disparaging. What I find interesting is the fact that you never commented on User:Griswaldo's entry of the same nature but choose to comment on mine. I do not wish to push this conversation further and encourage you to comment on the content, rather than on me. If you share the same views about content concerning criticism in the article, I implore you to pursue further research in the area. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a last-ditch comment intended to demean another person and thereby raise you up. Your grip on this article is slipping. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, my comment above was an evaluation of the last request for comment. The facts I presented about the people who opposed it were actually relevant to the point, which is that the stale mate we had is not representative of the community as a whole. I'm terribly sorry, but making that kind of comment requires some degree of evaluating the types of editors in the discussion. What you said is not comparable to that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Griswaldo, I did not object to your comment actually. I understand why you might have made it. The reason I made reference to your comment here is because my comment was of a similar nature and User:Binksternet did not hold the same standard with my comment as he did for yours. I hope this clarifies things for you. Take care! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources

Dear User:Jkhwiki, I encourage you to read WP:SECONDARY, which states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. For this reason, the content in the article is currently referenced by secondary sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anupam, I fully understand that just because Einstein claims to have invented a theory of gravitation, one doesn't just take him at his word. But as your link notes "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." My question is what primary sources, if any, are the quoted secondary sources based on?Jkhwiki (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation, however, has been called a "militant atheist group" in The Washington Examiner”

The owner of this article has asked me to justify my deletion of the above irrelevant comment. I did so in my edit summary. Do I need to come here and beg permission of Anupam before deleting irrelevant material from the article? Now, let's attend to that truly appalling introductory paragraph. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Snalwibma, in your edit summary, you stated that "Remove irrelevant and feeble attempt to have the last word. This is a section about criticism of the term "militant atheism", not a forum for random comments about organisations you disagree with." First of all, this information has been in the article for a very long period of time; as such, you cannot assume whether I agree with the organisation or not. Moreover, the fact that you personally like the organisation does not mean that it is immune to criticism, which is encyclopaedic information, especially considering the fact that the organisation is discussed in the previous sentence. According to WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The information is not being presented as fact; rather, the statement is attributed to The Washington Examiner. There is no need to remove a verifiable sentence, which is supported by a reliable source from the article because you disagree with their conclusion; all relevant viewpoints should be discussed. The nature of your edit was contentious as an anonymous IP Address reverted your removal of referenced information. As the reviewing administrator on this article cautioned, I would highly encourage you to discuss this issue and gain consensus for any action, rather than remove longstanding information from the article. If your issue is with the way the sentence is worded, I am more than happy to compromise with you on this. You can suggest a proposed wording of how you feel the sentence should look. Moreover, I agree that we should focus our attention to the introduction of the article; a discuss is open on that topic right now. I hope you will comment there. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that before I had the chance to revert the removal of this information (which I was doing in my subsequent edit), another anonymous IP address reverted the same removal a minute before I could do so. This further demonstrates the contentious nature of User:Snalwibma's removal. Once again, I implore you to discuss this issue and gain consensus for any action, rather than remove longstanding, verifiable, and referenced information from the article as the reviewing administrator on this article cautioned. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that the quote about the Freedom From Religion Foundation comes from a reliable source, or that it is well referenced. Rather, it's a simple matter of relevance at this point in the article. It would be quite appropriate to use this in an article about the Foundation, or elsewhere in this article, such as in a section discusing organisations that have been described as "militant atheist". But this section of the article is discussing views about the use of the phrase "militant atheist/ism", and inserting the comment about the Foundation looks like a pure editorial point-scoring attempt to discredit Fahringer and her views. It is an example of the fact-stuffing and point-scoring tendencies that the article suffers from, further evidence of the way the article has been hijacked and turned into an opinion piece about the evils of atheism instead of an honest and encyclopaedic attempt to discuss the subject. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is no serious problem showing that the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" has been referred as a "militant atheist group", and it seems to be within the article's purpose to offer information about people or organizations which have been identified as "militant atheists". (However, it could be reworded and perhaps shown in parentheses.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any bare statement that this person or that group has been called a militant atheist is not helpful to the reader. Such bare statements do not assist the reader in understanding the reason. Many such statements are not notable, or are not particularly revealing. This article should not devolve into a List of people and groups that have been called militant atheist. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not look like just a simple "bare statement", since the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" organization (which is not without influence) is already mentioned in the article. So mentioning that this organization has been seen as a "militant atheist group" can provide the reader with more information which can be relevant to the article's topic. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why they were called such and the bare factoid will be transformed into something worthwhile.
You restored the bare bit with the edit summary "Since, this information has already been in the article for some time, please do not remove it without consensus." That is not a valid reason for keeping low-quality text. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, think the article would be better without it. How many different editors have to stand up to the editwarring before it's finally acknowledged as "consensus"? bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is here to better inform the reader of the term's contemporary usage. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a known, influential organization, and shows that the term is not necessarily applied solely as a slur against individuals. Moreover, it is not an attempt to discredit the organization, as it has been mentioned earlier in the article and is framed with the words "has been called" and "in the Washington Examiner." How these statements are read as "is plainly" and "as is proudly declared in its founding charter; seriously, just take my word for it" I still do not understand. Also, perhaps context from the article would be better than an explanation, as I'm sure "by the Washington Examiner for its status as a group advocating the abandonment of religion" would be dismissed as non-notable or original research or conflating the FFRF with the USSR. Hmmm, now [[1]] could we find that context?Turnsalso (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bobrayner, in your comment you stated that you "think the article would be better without it." This is NOT a sufficient reason to remove a longstanding, referenced, and verifiable piece of information from the article, especially when WP:NPOV demands that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an advocacy group arguing for a position. As such, it is completely relevant for a major media source's categorization of the organisation to be included in the article, as it provides the reader with context of the comment and is relevant to the topic being discussed. I would argue the same position if the Alliance Defense Fund were making a comment on the subject. Furthermore, the reviewing administrator of this page cautioned all parties involved here not to make changes in the article without gaining consensus for it first; he even stated here: "Simply put: don't make large-scale changes without consensus, don't revert others without good, unbiased reason (vandalism, BLP violations, etc)." A specific page notice was even added to enforce this. You have broken this injunction and I would kindly request that you please self-revert to the former consensus version and allow this issue to be discussed thoroughly before any action is taken. Contrary to your edit summary, three users here, in addition to two anonymous IP addresses have expressed disapproval with the content/reference removal from the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You quote WP:NPOV but the policy does not apply to the presence or absence of this factoid. You quote no consensus to make changes but every editor here is breaking that "injunction", not just the ones who disagree with you. Consensus can change. What applies most directly here is WP:UNDUE and simple common sense, such that a bare fact that does not elucidate the topic is not needed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also (yes, I can see I do have to repeat myself), it may be relevant elsewhere in the article, given enough context so that it makes sense, but it is clearly not relevant in this particular section of the article, which is not concerned with which organisations and/or people have been called MA, but with comments on the use of the term MA. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Snalwibma, where in the article should the statement be moved, in your opinion? I feel that it belongs in the place where it is located now because it clarifies an aforementioned advocacy organisation. Also, I beginning to wonder why User:Binksternet supports an unclarified criticism from the FFRF in the article but championed for the elimination of a reference from the Biologos Foundation, an advocacy group holding the opposing viewpoint. I think I will soon comment on the removal of the information presented by Ian H. Hutchinson, Ph.D., professor of nuclear science at MIT. I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the article included a list of organisations and people who have been labelled MA, that might be a suitable place - but that section was mercifully deleted some time ago, as too likely to deteriorate into mere mud-slinging. Tacking on the information in question doesn't clarify the organisation, it merely labels it. What is it that you wish to clarify - that the FFRF is an atheist group whose opinions therefore don't count? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I was the one who actually wrote most of the "Criticism of the term" section and removed the "mudslinging section" you refer to so setting up an emotional strawman to represent my reasoning for the inclusion of a relevant statement is not helpful. I stated that WP:NPOV demands that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an advocacy group arguing for a position. As such, it is completely relevant for a major media source's categorization of the organisation to be included in the article, as it provides the reader with context of the comment and is relevant to the topic being discussed. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would one support it being added in with the statement mentioning the FFRF above, something like "The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has been labeled as a militant atheist organization by the Washington Examiner, etc."? Turnsalso (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Reply to Anupam: Ian Hutchinson, PhD, deserves to be quoted on physics topics. He is a plasma physicist at MIT, and perfectly qualified to speak on physics. On atheism and religion, his cred drops to nil. He is not notable on the topic of religion and his opinion about militant atheism is not worth inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Turnsalso, I will be willing to accept your compromise, if User:Snalwibma is willing to. User:Binksternet, Catherine Fahringer of the local San Antonio chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation does not possess any doctorate and is far from an authority on theology. Moreover, Ian Hutchinson, as a scientist is qualified to speak on matters of religion and science, which is often the centre of discussions held by proponents of New Atheism. Regardless, I am not going to discuss this issue now but will bring it up later, after the current issues are resolved. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I just semi-protected the article for 1 day based on a request at WP:RFPP. I'm concerned that an IP editor was making the exact same reverts as a registered editor who is currently in a content dispute. It could be someone who just forgot to log in, it could be someone new entirely (though that seems unlikely), or it could be someone intentionally trying to avoid tripping 3RR. In any event, the semi-protection temporarily prevents the latter from happening, and I don't see a big history of IP edits on this article that the 1 day protection will harm. However, the edit warring still needs to stop. Y'all should continue the discussion in the section above, and not revert each other while the discussion is on going. I don't want to have to come back and issue blocks or fully protect the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking

The first sentence currently reads:

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.

then gives 6 refs, only one of which uses the word "hostile". This is cherry-picking. Other sources describe different ways of being militant. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The lede needs to reflect the variety of views taken by sources by saying something such as "Militant atheism is a term that has been applied to atheists for various reasons, including hostility to religion, a desire to control or eliminate religion, and/or a belief that society would be better without religion." which uses the same sources.--JimWae (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is sourced and was accepted during the last closed discussion of the issue. I understand that you wish to work on the introduction and I have moved the discussion below so others may also be able to access it. I would request that you please provide a source for the statement you invented. Instead of adding another tag to the article, please discuss your issues here, in accordance with the reviewing administrator's notice here, which states: "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." Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is pertinent and it stays until the issue is resolved. Anupam, you do not WP:OWN this article and I would like you to please consider this a warning regarding that guideline. You cannot demand that the article exist in your preferred state unless you've agreed to change it in a prior discussion. This is a collaborative project. Jim feels that the tag is necessary and he has stated his concerns. I agree with him. Convince us otherwise but please stop acting like you have the right to maintain the article above all others. You do not. I'll leave you an additional message on your talk page about WP:OWN as a behavioral issue as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a tag on the article and placing extra tags is disruptive when you could simply discuss the issue. It is improper to retag an article just because you did not accept the outcome of the previous discussion. The mere fact that "you agree" with User:JimWae is not enough. Others have been willing to discuss the issue with him as well; see the discussion where User:Cody7777777's comment went unresponded. I'm willing to collaborate and have actually have evidence in this article's history to demonstrate this: Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. I am once again going to repeat the reviewing administrator's words for you: "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." I am willing to discuss the introduction, and even re-wrote it to address the concerns you have. However, you have not even commented there and would rather edit war over an extra tag. This is not only disruptive, but disrespectful. Consider this a warning to respect consensus. As a courtesy, I will leave this message on your talk page so you can reflect on the spirit of discussion and collaboration. Also, do not make loaded statements and state that I am reverting to the version of my preferred state; this is hardly true in light of the gargantuan NPOV banner in the main space of the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC, and a tag is not a content change. If you want to take it up with that administrator please do, that way I can discuss your WP:OWN violations with them. There is no magic "consensus" written in stone regarding what this entry should look like. There are many dissenting voices here, but you just argue people to death and revert them when they try to make changes or add tags. I've had enough and I like I said on your talk page you've been warned. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that consensus is subject to change and that is why there is another discussion going on over the introduction, which you have not bothered to participate in; rather, you have chosen to edit war (please see WP:WAR). Also, your condemnation of my willingness to discuss my issues with others and provide solid references for my views will not be taken seriously, because this is how Wikipedia works. I understand that an administrator will be arriving to look at the issues going on here. I hope you have had time to reflect on the warning on your talk page. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't commented much here but I have been reading it, and Anupam has always been ready and willing to discuss thoroughly. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what is the POV issue here. While the statements that militant atheism includes "a desire to control or eliminate religion, and/or a belief that society would be better without religion" can show accurate information, they describe nonetheless a hostility to religion. As far as I see, all the references mentioned there, seem to speak about the same view, some sort of hostility to religion (even if the exact term "hostile" is not used, and to me this looks like common sense), the sources do not seem to contradict this view. So I don't see how exactly there is a conflict with neutrality here. And regarding WP:OWN, neither Anupam nor other editors own this article, and that is one of the reasons these issues should be solved through discussion and consensus (not edit wars). Cody7777777 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through this discussion, I have to conclude that Anupam is not "cherry picking". Though only one of the six sources mentions the word "hostility", the others do not contradict such a deduction. It would be another case if 3 of the sources categorically stated that miltant atheism is NOT hostile to religion. Besides, all of wikipedia is not a quotation - writing a good article involves the assimilation of information and a reasonable interpretation and summary thereof. I don't see how any of the six sources mentioned fail to back up the inclusion of the word "hostile". I also feel that Anupam has at all times been willing to discuss matters of contention but is being increasingly hampered by other editors making unilateral changes contrary to consensus and abbrasive to the delicate nature of this discussion. basalisk (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the lede should acknowledge that there are other characteristics besides hostility for which the term has been applied to people. None of the sources give a definition and picking one way of being "militant" over others (such as just being outspoken about criticizing religion) paints everyone with the same brush. Besides what is called "hostility" is open to interpretation. People get militant about things for other reasons than just because they are hostile, such as defending themselves against discrimination. To give sole prominence to it being about having a hostile attitude is prejudicial. There is no ideology called militant atheism that fits every athiesT who may be militant, and there is no single attitude or motivation.--JimWae (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction, Part II

I am offering a revision of the current introduction, which addresses the major concerns that have been offered by several users, including the degree to which militant atheism holds religion to be harmful as well as the issue of the New Atheist writers not advocating violence against believers, which many have keen on including in the article. Moreover, it meets WP:LEDE by summarizing the major sections of the article, which was not the case in the version listed above. I hope this version can be seen as a good faith compromise that will gain favor from both parties as it also meets WP:RS and WP:V. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this version. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Historically, the main usage of the term refers to the doctrine advocating the propagation of atheism among the masses,[2][7] as well as the combating of religion as a harmful aberration, which was often undertaken by atheist states.[3][2][1] This application of the term was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,[8][9][10][11]

and significant in the French Revolution,[12][13] the Soviet Union,[14][15] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.[16] The term militant atheist has also been applied to various political thinkers.[17] 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 (writers often identified as New Atheists),[18][19][20][7] who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers.[18][21][7][22]

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."[23]

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 c 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. ^ Paul Froese (2008). The Plot to Kill God: findings from the Soviet experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. p. 45. From the start Lenin demanded that Communist propaganda stress "militancy and irreconcilability toward all forms of idealism and religion. And that means that materialism organically reaches that consequence and perfection which in the language of philosophy is called — militant atheism."
  9. ^ Arnold Miller (1971). Diderot Studies. Librairie Droz. Retrieved 24 August 2011. Plekhanov demonstrates, writes Doroshevich, that the materialists' militant atheism was thoroughly grounded in their materialism : Deeply convinced of the materiality of the world, of the ability of matter to give rise to all its modifications, the French materialists rejected the "hypothesis" of the existence of God as an unecessary and harmful chimera, which hindered the development of science (p. 10).
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 289. 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.
  12. ^ Leopold Damrosch. Fictions of reality in the age of Hume and Johnson. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 205. Retrieved 2011-03-05. The French Revolution was unprecedented in a militant atheism that was at once a cause of, and an index to, its novel status as "a revolution in sentiments, manners, and moral opinions" (Reflections 175).
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ 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)
  18. ^ a b Elaine A. Heath (2008). "Mystic Way of Evangelism". Baker Academic. Retrieved 19 July 2011. 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. Cite error: The named reference "Appositive" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ 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)
  20. ^ Natalie Goldstein; Walton Brown-Foster (2010). "Religion and the State". Infobase Publishing. Retrieved 21 July 2011. 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ 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.

  • 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, summarizing each section of the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I notice the dispute above, saw the article on Facebook, and I believe this is the best introduction to the article. I am a religious person and I support it. As an Orthodox Jew, I know people who personally suffered from this persecution. I believe this has great relevance to my community. I was also impressed by the number of sources and believe it is good research.Jwaxman1 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaxman1 (talkcontribs) 02:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready yet. The proposed lead is okay in its first half, though it needs the word the before the word "Great". The bigger problem is the second half, which I think should be another paragraph. The date 1894 should be inserted into the first half, and the modern use of the term defined clearly in the second half but in general terms, without specific reference to Niose, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Stenger. I include Niose in the people who do not need to be namechecked in the lead because Niose only restates the modern use of the term; he does not give a unique definition. Also, the lead section does not need to be referenced because it is ideally a summary of referenced text in the body. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Binksternet, thanks for your comment. If the names are the issue with this revision, I will be happy to compromise further, if other editors also feel the same way. What is the alternative you have to listing the New Atheist writers explicitly? I also have no objection to removing mention of David Niose if other editors feel that that would be helpful. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The intro by Anupam is clear and concise and well referenced.ClassArm (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - see below: A few points about above proposals:--JimWae (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still Oppose This matter cannot be settled simply by a vote. There has been no attempt to accommodate the very reasonable objections to this proposal by providing alternate wording. This discussion has been dormant for weeks at a time, yet it keeps getting moved to the bottom as if it were the only place to discuss the article, and people are repeatedly told that the "proper" place to discuss is within a vote on a proposal that is already 4 weeks old and has had many objections raised against it.--JimWae (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:JimWae, several users have actually tried to discuss your views with you but you have never responded to their replies. For example, you never replied to Cody7777777's answer to your concern. The fact is that issues have been addressed but you have not responded when users entertained your concerns. Instead, you made unilateral changes without gaining consensus, in violation of the reviewing administrator's injunction: "please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes." If you have any concerns with this version, please share them here. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, I have responded several times to several people's concerns - but who could find it after you keep re-arranging the talk page every few days--JimWae (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this discussion was moved here in order to allow other editors to comment on it because many were not aware that a discussion on the Introduction was taking place. Moreover, you never replied to User:Cody7777777, who demonstrated that terminology "propagate" is supported by several sources. I would encourage you to address those issues, because if not, then your point remains refuted. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There cannot be a very fruitful discussion buried out of sequence within the context of a "vote". It is time to have a new section with a new proposal that accommodates at least some of the objections raised to Anupam's of 4 weeks ago. I cannot formulate such a proposal. I do not consider this an important article and I do not think it will ever become a good article, since it is about a term. There has already been more philological research on the history of the term done by editors of this article than there is in most books on the subject. In my view, most of the material on state atheism should be merged to their separate articles and this page should only be about 15% of its current length. I will not become complicit in an article about a term with so wild a scope as this. All I can do is propose less objectional wordings, some of which you have already accepted. Let's not have this discussion have the same result as the last one -- after it was closed, the article was reverted to a state that the discussion had already moved beyond, including undoing typos that had previously been corrected. Let me also briefly say, AS I HAVE ALREADY *somewhere* above or below this section (who knows where it will end up tomorrow?), and likely more than once, that it is a misreading of what I wrote to say I objected to "propagate". I objected to limiting the propagation to "the masses" - the propagation was for everyone, and talk of the "masses" just invites class warfare terminology. SUM: There needs to be a place to discuss this besides buried inside this 4-week old vote that keeps getting moved around. --JimWae (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you haven't bothered to engage editors who have responded to your concerns. In fact, User:Cody7777777's lengthy response to your concerns still goes unresponded. Instead, you unilaterally interject unreferenced information into the article without providing references. In fact, you state that the reliable sources are "plain wrong", which violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact of the matter is that many other editors find this version to be a good compromise and you may have to accept this collaborative spirit, as I, and others have done. Moreover, this RfC is not closed, and will remain open to allow others to comment as it has gained many comments thus far. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tone is hostile and you are totally misreading (or not reading at all) what I say. I try to offer a way out of this stalemate & you present foolish retorts instead of considering any merit to what I say. I will not dignify your response with any further comment. --JimWae (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I sounded rude; I wish to be amiable to you. You are more than welcome to discuss any concerns you have with this revision here. I (and hopefully other editors) will try to address your concerns here. I hope this helps. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-worded, well-referenced, relevant to the reader. I would also support Binksternet's revision (see below), if consensus leans that way. Turnsalso (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Initially hesitant, but after letting it sink in I think it is an improvement, and it addresses the POV concerns previously expressed.– Lionel (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The new version does some improvements to the current. Binksternet's version can also be acceptable for me (but the part about the term's first use in 1894 should be revised, since earlier usage has been shown).Cody7777777 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I liked the original but in the spirit of co-operation I hope this one is broad enough. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well sourced compromise. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is an improvement on the present version, but it still needs to be much more circumspect in saying that "militant atheism" is a term applied to those whose attitude is perceived to be ... [etc.] It is still guilty of using a sweeping synthesis to construct a phantom THING out of a mere coincidence of terminology across a wide range of different contexts and with a wide range of different meanings. That complexity, and that range of meanings, cannot fairly be telescoped into a single definition that happens to suit a few Wikipedia editors. Also - what's with all the footnotes? There is far more text in the footnotes (all those quotations) than in the main text. Making the reader jump up and down from text to footnote and back is very poor writing. If it's worth including, it belongs in the text proper. If it's not worth including in the main text, it does not mmerit a place in the footnotes. Reduce all the footnotes to references only, no quotes. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your opinion, User:Snalwibma. However, I must respectfully disagree. The statement discussing the concept is supported by several sources; in addition, the subsequent sentences distinguish between the usage of the term, which was the issue in question. The fact that there is a large amount of references supporting the statements in the introduction demonstrates the fact that it is not a synthesis, but is verified by reliable sources. The introduction also parallels the structure of the article, namely the concept, as defined by several philosophers, and then its application. Moreover, I strongly object to removing the quotes from the references, and this has been discussed in the past. Without the quotes, editors would be removing information from the article left and right as this is a controversial article. The quotes ensure that the information in the article is verifiable and is not original research or synthesis. This made it easy for User:Peterstrempel to perform his Word Razor. Since he was unsure of the content of the article, he could look at the quotes and ensure that every reference that was used, discussed militant atheism, and used that specific terminology, not anything else. As such, if any reader challenges a statement, he/she may simply check the reference, which will provide the original text, ensuring that the article meets WP:NPOV. I will wait for more editors to come and evaluate the proposed introduction. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the wrong question, because like others have already said it still violates WP:SYNTH. We need to revisit the idea of splitting the article content up and probably merging it into already existing entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That question has already been asked, and answered: we're not splitting the article. You can challenge the process all you want. You have no argument. You have no consensus. – Lionel (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:SYNTH and Griswaldo(above), Snalwibma(above), Peterstrempel[2], JimWae[3], Fubar Obfusco[4], et al. See Rolf Schmidt for strawmen. Time for a wide RfC on this puppy. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, this is not really a WP:SYNTH issue, since the proposed lead introduction does not claim that there was a connection between "new atheists" and state militant atheists, it just documents the obvious fact that it has been applied by sources to both groups. And there are sources which speak about both, like the following "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)." (this does not claim that there was a direct connection between them, but it identifies both as "militant atheists"). But nonetheless, the discussion about splitting should not be repeated too soon after the previous debate (and it will probably just waste more time, that could be used for better things). Cody7777777 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: closing discussion This proposed intro has extremely persuasive argumements in support and overwheling support in terms of !voting. I see no reason to further delay incorporating the new intro into the article per consensus.– Lionel (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This whole article reads to me like what one would get by googling "militant atheism" and throwing together the results. As far as the parts related to contemporary discussions of atheism are concerned, they are in fact based on extraordinarily slim scholarly sources, and what sources there are are being used to buttress the article rather than the other way round. In my opinion this article makes about as much sense as one entitled, say, "Intolerant Atheism" and I don't think any rewrite of the type proposed will fix it. Regards to all.Jkhwiki (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To be honest, regardless of the actual lead content, it still reads like crap. Because of the tortured prose and unreadability, no casual reader would bother getting past the lead anyway. Also see Talk:Militant_atheism#Dear_Anupam comments from User:Peterstrempel. The article still looks like POV pushing. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC comment. I'm not sure what I think about the wording of the lead, and I'm not watchlisting this page, just responding to the multiple RfCs that have popped up. I found it very informative, however, to read through the reference list that is provided just above. I see plenty of reliable sources using the term "militant atheism" to describe what is sometimes also categorized as state atheism. And I also see plenty that use it to refer to the New Atheists. But I've read carefully through every quote in every citation given, and not one of them does both of those things. I don't see any sources here that treat the two broad categories described in the lead as being parts of the same thing. And that's a problem with this page. The last time there was an RfC here to which I responded, some of us pointed out the need for sourcing that would take this page out of WP:COATRACK territory. Time has passed, and I come back here to find that still lacking. There will continue to be concerns about WP:NPOV, and yes, WP:SYNTH, so long as the page can be construed as equating Dawkins, for example, with Stalin, for example. Based on the references offered, I'm not sold on the argument that this page is about one subject, just because there's a phrase that is used in two different contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Jkhwiki that the fundamental concept of this article is flawed. 'Militant atheist' is something that people accuse other people of, and it seems to have a different meaning depending on the situation and who's saying it. It is not a movement or a theory. It's a description or an accusation. It will be very difficult to achieve consensus on the exact meaning of what is essentially a vague turn of phrase. - JRheic (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it can mean multiple things doesn't mean the term is inherently vague. Atheism can mean multiple things, but it, too, can be well-defined. This intro sentence defines the different meanings well. Geremia (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion" does not define two meanings. It is not even in the form of a definition for one meaning. It is like calling a flower pretty, and then going on to say other pretty things are also flowers.--JimWae (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It succinctly defines and distinguishes the different applications of the same concept "Militant Antheism" (historical, current, applied to political thinkers, what opponents to the terminology think it means [thus supporting WP:NPOV ], etc.) and shows how they relate to each another. It obeys WP:V with its many good sources, too. Thus, it is a good summary/intro paragraph and should be kept. Geremia (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Unless it is clear that the term is one that is predominantly used by theists to disparage atheists, I don't see how the lede can be neutral. The obvious synthesis with respect to Marxism/Leninism needs to go. aprock (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: First sentence is still the same: Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. It's not neutral, and needs to be changed. You must attribute every controversial claim to reliable source.--В и к и T 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this section, where it was also discussed why it is not a neutrality issue with that sentence. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The excessive use of the passive voice leaves out essential information. Specifically, who is this term applied by? If this is indeed a neutral recounting of the discourse about the phrase, and not some other unencyclopedic pursuit, then this information would be present in the lede.

Full protection

Per the Wikipedia Protection policy, I've fully protected this article indefinitely. Until a resolution is reached, the current version will stay as it is.

Please understand that, while this is no one user's fault (no, really, I mean that - don't start pointing fingers at each other), I'm pretty amazed at how resistant some people are to instruction. I've warned everybody, multiple times, not to edit war, no matter what (with the exception of blatant vandalism). I even created a page notice to warn all new incoming editors. And, funny thing - we were actually getting somewhere by discussing changes. But, unfortunately, sometimes people can't get that warring instinct out of their heads, and here we are.

As said above, the page will remain protected until disagreements are sorted out.

Any questions are welcome on my talk page. m.o.p 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really too bad. When several editors make the same edit against the wishes of one editor, it isn't edit warring, it's the maintenance of consensus. The one editor is violating WP:OWN in such a case. By locking the page you validate their claim to ownership. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm protecting it because this has been going on long enough and nobody seems to understand that, when I say no edit warring, I mean no edit warring. I don't care if anybody's attempting to own the article, or injecting unaccepted facts - take it up on the talk page and let me, or another administrator, know. Reverting them is literally just as good as doing nothing - it just sparks a dispute.
So no, this is not the fault of one editor. m.o.p 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take this authoritarian tone. Your authority comes from the community and it is granted you to keep us in line with policy. Tell us not to do something because that's the correct way to follow policy, don't tell us not to because you said so. What you say is immaterial, but what policy and consensus say is not. So sure, help keep us in line with policy, but that comment just now is just seriously offensive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with your reply, given that my decision to protect is solely policy-based, and that all previous actions were undertaken on the community's behalf - how is this authoritarian? Would you like me to moderate articles by sitting by and quietly protesting until the article is reduced to a few shreds of contested paragraphs? It's been three months of moderation and continuous discussion, yet people still feel the need to push each other back and forth - therefore, the article has been locked. If you're still unsure as of whether or not I'm acting with policy, feel free to ask me to explain further. m.o.p 22:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to reconsider saying things like: "When I say no edit warring, I mean no edit warring." Have you ever been a child or a parent? I assume at least the former. You must understand how patronizing such comments are. I never said you don't have a policy based reason for your protection, I am simple reflecting on the comment you made, and the tone you made it in (like an angry parental authority figure). You are the one who stressed that when you say this you mean it! If you don't get this then I'm sorry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Griswaldo, there was no consensus to remove the information. In fact, three editors, including myself, User:Cody7777777, and User:Turnsalso expressed our disapproval with the information being unilaterally removed. User:Snalwibma did not discuss the removal of the information but did so unilaterally, which is why I reverted him once, two anonymous IP Addresses reverted him several times, and User:Cody7777777 reverted him. The removal of information was not performed after consensus. You did not even add a single comment to the discussion that was taking place about the topic! Instead, you reverted the reinstatement of the consensus version and are now stating that I was violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I was not edit warring, and even engaged in discussion with other editors on the topic. As such, it is totally appropriate that User:Master of Puppets protected the article (preserving your revision by the way) because you were not following the injunction given by the reviewing administrator: 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. You also ignored the page notice given to create a spirit of discussion, consensus, and then change. As a result, do not criticize User:Master of Puppets, but look to yourself for violating consensus, edit warring, and posting rude messages, when you never bothered to discuss your edits in the first place. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mop, don't let Griswaldo bother you. He's just acting like a dick because he's pissed that his OWN accusation against Anupam didn't stick, and his edit warring was for naught. On behalf of all the other editors I'd just like to say mop you've been fair in your "oversight" of the article and your admonition is well taken. – Lionel (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be split?

Should this article be split to separate criticism or derogation of New Atheism from text about State atheism, Laïcité, Secularism and Antireligion? Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support either splitting or dabbing this page, as the current article seems to mash together several different uses of the simple phrase - an abstract concept preceded by an adjective; and we already have multiple articles on the abstract concept - it's more like Dominant group than Splendid isolation. The article gives the impression that these different uses of the phrase are the same thing. They're not; some are bitterly incompatible with others. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current entry is in violation of WP:SYNTH. People using the same term in different ways does not make a cohesive subject matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also would support disambiguation as an option and I agree with Nil that the RFCs should be merged. Currently conflates different meanings of the phrase. It's like combining visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the air together with internet-based use of computer technology stored on servers because they both happen to be termed Cloud. Mojoworker (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC Comment. Support. I'll explain why in the RfC below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The same RfC is being discussed below. Please comment there. In addition, another RfC regarding the introduction is taking place above; comments there would also be appreciated. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be split or made into a disambiguation page?

Should this article be split to separate criticism or derogation of New Atheism from other uses? Or should it be reduced to a disambiguation page, sending the reader to various related articles such as New Atheism, State atheism, Laïcité, Secularism and Antireligion? Well-referenced text from this article would be merged as needed into the other articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed other possible alternative
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Alternative phrasing: Should this article be split into Militant atheism (historical usage) and content pertaining exclusively to the criticism New Atheism be moved to New Atheism? The page for Militant atheism would serve as a disambiguation page for the two articles. Another option that administrator User:SilkTork suggested would be to have an article on Militant atheism and Militant atheism (word), the latter of which would explain the usage of the word throughout time, with the former article discussing the historical usage, paralleling the article on Jew and Jew (word) (NOTE: I do not personally oppose the splitting of the article for reasons I describe below. However, this wording of the proposal would be a compromise between the two parties that might be the next best option, in my humble opinion).--AnupamTalk 23:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that last alternative phrasing captures any proposal for any change to this article. Historical usage began before the USSR existed -- and includes, from the outset, criticism of outspoken atheists. The split needs to be on separating State atheism content from New Atheists content--JimWae (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, User:JimWae. However, it seems as if some users here have favored such as approach, including User:Yunshui. It will encourage more discussion! As such, let's wait and continue to read the responses here. Right now, eleven individuals have uniformly opposed and sixteen have supported some kind of split. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, Yunshui's proposal specifically uses the parenthetical (state atheism), not (historical usage) as in your alternative. aprock (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, the parenthetical, historical usage, is more applicable to the content in the article outside of state atheism. Moreover, my proposal is in harmony with WP:DABCONCEPT. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
historical usage does not separate out any usage at all -- at BEST, it reduces the content of certain topics. This RfC has been consistently about separating out State atheism from New atheism. If you want to start a separate question, it needs another section. Your proposal is distinct from the previous topic, is not an ALTERNATIVE wording of the topic, and is off-topic regarding the positions below --JimWae (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one proposal above talks about making a disambiguation page and the other talks about moving content to other named articles. There's nothing wrong with offering an alternative for discussion. After all, that's what this RfC is for. I hope this clears things up. Thanks for your understanding, AnupamTalk 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still not an ALTERNATIVE wording of the question - it is a separate question-- placed above answers people have already given to the original Q. Besides, (historical usage) could contain the exact same content as this article and be subject to the same problems this article has - trying to subsume Dawkins & Stalin under one ideology --JimWae (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all the content on this article discussing New Atheism would be moved to New Atheism. The ceontent regarding the French Revolution, League of Militant Atheists, USSR, Marxism-Leninism, Cultural Revolution, Mussolini, etc. would be moved to Militant atheism (historical usage). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would make that usage THE historical usage -- AND how would such an article be distinct from the State atheism article (or any of the OTHER several articles already dealing with that same topic)?--JimWae (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article of state atheism can only discuss atheism, as applied to governments; similarly the article on state church can discuss Christianity as applied to governments. However, the article on state atheism cannot discuss the ideology of militant atheism itself, which has sometimes manifested itself as the ideology held by an atheist state. In the same manner, the article on state church or Islamic state cannot discuss Christianity or Islam, respectively. In light of this fact, militant atheism deserves an article in its own right. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1>Now you are backtracking 2>you did not address "What would make that usage THE historical usage" Anyone could come along and add other usages in the history of its usage. 3>An article on State atheism can certainly discuss a policy some state had which they called "militant atheism" 4>Saying there is an ideology "militant atheism" shared by Dawkins & Stalin is exactly what led to the problem we are trying to deal with here. Starting another article with apparently the same problem would not be any compromise nor any attempt to move forward. --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop revising comments people have already responded to --JimWae (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I just thought I would add a proposal that administrator User:SilkTork suggested earlier. Take care, AnupamTalk 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion belongs in a separate section. The original question was whether the article should be split generally, and 30+ editors have already responded to it. Rephrasing the question now to add specifics no one has discussed or agreed upon is unhelpful. Noleander's phrasing seems acceptable, and in-line with what editors have been commenting on thus far. We can discuss specifics elsewhere.   — Jess· Δ 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've moved the discussion to a separate section, as it's clogging up the actual RfC, potentially making it appear to be asking a different question than what was intended. Thanks,   — Jess· Δ 23:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved my comments back to their original place and hatted this discussion since you felt it might have clogged up the actual RfC. Placing my comment in a separate section made it appear as if I advocated splitting in the first place, which I do not. The proposal right now names specific articles that content would be split into and the wording I placed details the disambiguation and splitting proposal. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Anupam, this is a little disruptive. You've received input from two editors now that adding new conditions to an ongoing RfC question is unhelpful. None of the editors below who have supported or opposed have done so with your proposal in mind, but putting it here makes it appear as though they have. I'd very strongly urge you to move it back to a separate section (with whatever wording you'd like) so it can be discussed in its proper place, without disrupting this RfC.   — Jess· Δ 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the hat you just added is fine. Thank you for that.   — Jess· Δ 23:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming that you intended to hat the proposal. Hatting the discussion and not the proposal worsens the problem, because it only censors the objections to it. I've (Jimwae) moved the hat up to encompass the whole thing. If you meant to not hat the proposal, then I would again urge you to move this to a separate section. Or, you could make the addition in the "comments" section like every other editor, instead of changing the wording of the question, and see if others comment on it there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 00:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome User:Mann jess. Right now, we have a good number of editors that oppose the split altogether, such as myself, and a good number of editors who support some kind of split. In the event that a split is the outcome, I will suggest this proposal as the specific way of splitting the article. Take care, AnupamTalk 00:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support either splitting or dabbing this page, as the current article seems to mash together several different uses of the simple phrase - an abstract concept preceded by an adjective; and we already have multiple articles on the abstract concept - it's more like Dominant group than Splendid isolation. The article gives the impression that these different uses of the phrase are the same thing. They're not; some are bitterly incompatible with others. bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I read the first half of the article, and I don't really see what the problem is. Is it that people have issues with so-called militant atheists of today being confused with the historical definition? If so, I don't think that's a problem, because the article is pretty explicit in that regard. I like the phrase, "Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe..." and the next sentence tells us the appellation has been criticized. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Adjwilley, thanks for your comment, exactly! The current introduction does read well, and gained consensus recently. Nevertheless, some users still had a problem with it so I re-wrote the introduction here. I hope this helps. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Anupam's approach, and I think any perceived problems can be solved by being more explicit about how the current use of the term is different than the historical use. I don't know a whole lot about atheism, but after reading the article I certainly didn't come away with the impression that the people who have been called militant atheists today have anything to do with what was going on in Russia and France, etc. P.S. if you merge these RFC's please make sure not to count my vote twice, since I commented early on in the other. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There is no need to split this article, and the RfC held this past summer found no consensus to do so. Moreover, the references in this article never use the terms "State atheism", "Laïcité", "Secularism", and "Antireligion" to describe the content. Rather, they use the term militant atheism; as such placing the content and references from this article into another one constitutes WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In addition, secularism is far from militant atheism; the two are completely different concepts. This article passes WP:N. Several renowned philosophers have written on the topic of militant atheism as given in the Concepts section of the article. Moreover, all of the philosophers are uniform in describing the concept of militant atheism as demonstrated by the following sources, which corroborate one another:

According to Atheism by philosopher Kerry S. Walters (published by Continuum International Publishing Group):

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.

According to Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions, by sociologist Phil Zuckerman (published by ABC-CLIO):

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.

According to philosopher Julian Baggini, in his book, Atheism, under the heading "Militant Atheism" (published by Sterling Publishing):

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.

According to Karl Rahner, in the encyclopaedia, Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi (published by Continuum International Publishing Group):

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.

According to Yang, in "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China" (published in the Sociology of Religion by Oxford University Press):

Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures.

As we can see from the above reliable sources, the concept of militant atheism, an atheistic hostility to religion, is well established by philosophers. Nevertheless, this concept has been applied differently throughout history, e.g. the League of Militant Atheists in the U.S.S.R., the state policy of the U.S.S.R, in the writings of Marxism-Leninism, in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and in the French Revolution (for the references supporting these assertions, please see the introduction). Today, the concept of militant atheism, an atheistic hostility to religion, is also prevalent in the writings of the New Atheists, as supported by information from several academic journals, among other academic literature, including, but not limited to (for all of the references, please see the "Today" section):

Fiala, Andrew. "Militant atheism, pragmatism, and the God-shaped hole". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (3): 139–151.

Studies: an Irish quarterly review. 96. Talbot Press. 2007. p. 106. "The leader of militant atheism in this part of the world is Richard Dawkins, a zoologist by training, who holds a chair founded for him at Oxford University."

Gillian Greenwood. The Literary Review. Fairleigh Dickinson University. "Yet there is something wrong with Dawkins. He has an obsessive hatred of God or, as he would put it, the idea of God and those who propagate the idea. His life is dominated by his militant atheism."

William H. Swatos, Daniel V. A. Olson (2000). The Secularization Debate. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 57. "But, aren't some scientists militant atheists who write books to discredit religion – Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan for example? Of course. But, it also is worth note that most of those, like Dawkins and Sagan, are marginal to the scientific community for lack of significant scientific work. And possibly even more important is the fact that theologians (cf., Cupitt 1997) and professors of religious studies (cf., Mack 1996) are a far more prolific source of popular works of atheism."

Philip Andrew Quadrio, Carrol Besseling (2009). Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections. Sydney University Press. p. 32. "There is, therefore, a particular irony in the most recent spate of militant atheist attacks on the irrationality of religious belief (Dennett 2006; Dawkins 2006; Hitchens 2007; Harris 2004, 2007) which are, at the same time, the most conspicuous examples of slavish commitment to crude, popular ethnic stereotypes, combined with an almost delusional misrepresentation of the facts of recent history. These militant atheists use the rhetoric of critical rationality to wage ideological warfare, not just against religion, but against Muslims."

Furthermore, the media commonly uses labels the New Atheism movement as being an expression of militant atheism (please see the “Media” section of the article for the plethora of references that support this assertion). Nevertheless, there are some individuals who criticize the term, as demonstrated by the criticism of the term section of the article. These factors, per WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE, are all taken into account by the current introduction, which gained consensus from the community and was closed. Nevertheless, some individuals have expressed the need to re-write the introduction to better capture the essence of the article; as such, work on the Introduction has ensued and thus far, it has gained wide support from the community. I might add that a minority of individuals on the talk page have contested the article. In light of this fact, every reliable source present in the article contains the original quote from the reference used to verify the article content, so as to ensure WP:NPOV and avoid WP:SYNTH. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Coming here from ANI I would personally suggest this be merged with the RFC on splitting the article. They are IMO fairly related and while I guess it was done this way to reduce confusion, IMO the potential is for more confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nil Einne, you're welcome to merge the RfC's if you'd like. Cheers, AnupamTalk 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also would support splitting as an option and I agree with Nil that the RFCs should be merged. Currently conflates different meanings of the phrase. It's like combining visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the air together with internet-based use of computer technology stored on servers because they both happen to be termed Cloud. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Mojoworker, the fact that you do not agree with the term does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, there is an entire section of the article devoted to criticism of the term. Whether or not an article exists should not be based on original research, but on reliable sources, verifiability and notability, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that philosophers have written on the topic, evidenced by the multiple references in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You hope that helps? Are you serious? Did you even read what I said or do you just paste in stuff you've previously written? Your reply doesn't help at all since your response didn't address the issue I raised — yet another case where you evade the question and answer with something unrelated. I didn't say that I don't agree with the term, I said the article conflates two different meanings of the term. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Do you people even read the article before shouting "SYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTH," as if saying it enough times will suddenly make the violation appear? Nowhere in the article does it say that contemporary atheist movements have anything in common with the violent ones of the USSR beyond one simple term, applied pejoratively. It even goes into detail with criticism of this term's use, things which have been brought up time and again in this talk page. Where is this "egregious" example of WP:SYNTHESIS to be found? Can anyone show us?Turnsalso (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is more edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is no problem for Wikipedia to have an article about "Militant Atheism" (which has been mentioned in many sources, and described like a concept or ideology). It is obvious enough that the sources have used "Militant Atheism" to refer to both marxist-leninist state atheism and "New Atheism". And there are sources which speak about both, like the following "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)...". (And even if the sources are doing a mistake in referring to multiple groups as "militant atheists", it is not our job to correct them.) And the article does no confusion between the marxist-leninists and the recent writers also referred as the "new atheists", it does not claim that there was a connection between those groups, the article documents how "Militant Atheism" has been used by sources. But nonetheless, the article can be improved to make the distinction between these groups even clearer. I also agree that these RFCs should be merged. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC comment. I don't see much reason to make a DAB page, because, as Anupam points out, there are plenty of reliable sources treating the term "militant atheism" as a notable entity in its own right. But there is probably a good reason to support a split into two articles, treating state atheism and new atheism differently. I'll explain my reasoning for that in the RfC above, about the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on further reflection, I think I would support a DAB page, not least because of WP:BLP concerns about the way the page seems to cast aspersions on the New Atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The term "militant atheism", just like "fine food", is debatable and poorly defined, usually defined in passing rather than formally. Googling "militant atheism" and announcing the results is just as useful as Googling "tall buildings". Militant atheism is not so much an idea as a descriptive phrase used in various ways at various times. Turning the article into a disambiguation page will make that clear to the reader, and will quickly direct the reader to the desired article. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Binksternet, the fact that you do not agree with the term does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, there is an entire section of the article devoted to criticism of the term. Whether or not an article exists should not be based on your own opinion, but on reliable sources, verifiability and notability, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that philosophers have written on the topic, evidenced by the multiple references in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You responded with a cut-n-paste reply which does not merit an answer, yet I wish to know how you concluded that it was a 'fact' that I "do not agree with the term"? I certainly know the term exists, and I don't disagree that its various meanings have been expressed, but I question the term's relevance across the disparate fractions of the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, philosophers such as Gandhi and Kant have written or spoken about "brute force", defining their take on it, but those definitions do not establish a topic that can stand alone. Rather, the term Brute force is addressed on Wikipedia by having a disambiguation page take the reader to the various relevant articles. The same with "militant atheism". The various meanings that have been put forward do not agree with each other, and they do not relate to the same people, movements or actions. That is why I favor a dab page for militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above.Griswaldo (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: Inclusion in the same article of material on the two disparate uses of the term "militant atheism" seems to me to be a blatant and bad-faith attempt to tar the reputation of peaceful "new atheists" by dishonestly equating them with communists and fascists. Most troubling is the fact that none of the sources used do so, so this appears to violate WP:SYNTH. I'm also concerned by Anupam's attempts to WP:OWN the article with his filibustering and attempts to intimidate other editors by misrepresenting statements of the mediating administrator. I'm having a very hard time assuming good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support turning this into a disambiguation page. For reasons I wrote elsewhere: "...the fundamental concept of this article is flawed. 'Militant atheist' is something that people accuse other people of, and it seems to have a different meaning depending on the situation and who's saying it. It is not a movement or a theory. It's a description or an accusation. It will be very difficult to achieve consensus on the exact meaning of what is essentially a vague turn of phrase." - JRheic (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even the term "atheism" could be "a vague turn of phrase" if it is not properly defined. Does it mean those opposed to God or those who don't care there is no God? Etc. Geremia (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The continual push to split or delete this article amounts to POV pushing. The term is widely used, and there is no need to dilute the article, or delete it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a split, using this page as a DAB. After all the hard work that has been done to collect an impressive array of references, all of which use the phrase "militant atheism" or something similar, there is still no evidence of a coherent whole, or a consistent concept to which that label is applied. There is a coincidence of terminology, but that is all, and at the core of the article lies a synthesis that constructs a phantom THING out of that coincidence. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article clearly passes WP:N and the sources sustain a stand alone article. "Support" positions citing SYNTH have not been elucidated nor are they sustainable. We must follow the sourcing. Whether we try to hide Militant Atheism in a section, or scatter it to the 4 Wiki winds, sooner or later Militant Atheism will return because of the numerous sources. – Lionel (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgia also passes WP:N, but look at Georgia. Which is the primary usage of militant atheism? For decades it would NOT have been state atheism, then "state atheism" became almost the only usage -- until Madalyn Murray O'Hair. And now...?--JimWae (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (after ec) Also: the sources very rarely (some self-published ones) treat the two as the same topic - and when they do it is to rhetorically link one as leading to the other --JimWae (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)WP:SYNTH because this entry combines sources that utilize this term in different ways. It is original research plain and simple. Entries are meant to be about cohesive subjects. If you want to claim that the entry is about a term, and that the term has many meanings then see WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Also consider that there are no sources about this "term," there are only sources that utilize the term, and again do so differently. The only viable entries about terms are ones that have sources that actually discuss terms, as opposed to merely using terms. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect User:Griswaldo, there are several sources that define the concept and I have listed them in my comment here. They can also be viewed in the Concepts section. Individuals who favor splitting the article here do not take into account that philosophers HAVE defined the concept of militant atheism and moreover, the reliable sources corroborate one another, as I demonstrated above. I will add that the article on Christianity does mention both the Crusades and the founding of the World Council of Churches. Does this constitute synthesis? I will answer my own rhetorical question with a "no" and this is because they are linked by the same religion/ideology. In the same fashion, the Application of the well defined concept of militant atheism also differs, while the concept remains the same. I hope this clears things up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources clearly discuss Militant Atheism substantially. Citing SYNTH is absurd. Let's just call this what it is: WP:DONTLIKE. – Lionel (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support split or disambiguation of some kind, but have no strong opinion on how it should be carried out. It seems to me that a general principle of Wikipedia is that an article should be about a topic, rather than about a pile of different topics; Mojoworker's point about "cloud" and JimWae's point about "Georgia" adequately refute Anupam's contention that there must be only one article because different sources use the same term to mean different things. Throwing this unrelated material together is obviously intended to suggest that disliking religion is the same thing as persecuting religious people, which violates WP:NPOV. Or, in short, "per Tryptofish." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that disambiguation is NOT an option per WP:DABCONCEPT. This title can remain as a header for a broad concept or list article, but the "disambiguation" of this page would be a violation of disambiguation policy. bd2412 T 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a guideline and not a policy. That said I, and others, clearly don't agree with your interpretation of the guideline and its applicability here. There is no "general concept." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect User:Griswaldo, there are several sources that define the concept of militant atheism and I have listed them in my comment here, above. The scholarly references can also be viewed in the Concepts section in the mainspace of the article. Individuals who favor splitting the article here do not take into account that philosophers HAVE defined the concept of militant atheism and moreover, the reliable sources corroborate one another, as I demonstrated above. Appealing to WP:SYNTH is nonsensical when no synthesis is being made. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, militant atheism is atheism that is in some sense militant. There is not an album or a band or a book to be distinguished from this concept. The key attribute of a disambiguation page is that it gives people the correct link that they intended to search for. If someone says "Joe Smith was from Georgia" or "Joe Smith was an expert on Mercury" you don't know in the first example whether they meant the country or the state, or in the second whether they meant the planet, the element, the god, or the car. In each case, however, the link can be researched and fixed, there being one correct answer. If someone says "Joe Smith was an expert on Militant atheism", there likely can be no correct answer from among the links, meaning that the topic is not actually ambiguous, but merely encompasses a number of subtopics. We do not disambiguate terms like "militant atheism" for the same reason that we don't have a disambiguation page at Christianity or Islam, despite the wide variety of forms each takes. bd2412 T 02:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is incorrect to say that anyone else does or does not agree with my "interpretation" of the policy - prior to my comment, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the policy here, or of the rules governing disambiguation in general. This is not the place for such a discussion, since determinations about the correct interpretation of disambiguation policy should be made on the policy page of the disambiguation project. This is comparable to a "featured article" discussion. If you started a discussion on this page about making this a featured article, and fifty people agreed (without consulting the FA guidelines) that it was featured article material, it would still be incorrect to add the FA tag to the page based solely on that talk page discussion. bd2412 T 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite surprised that you continue to refer to this guideline as a policy. Have you read what it says at the top of the guideline page?
  • "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
Yet you present your application of this guideline as if it were simply fact, and must be followed. I appreciate your interpretation that this guideline is applicable here here but I don't agree with it. You say this entry is like "Christianity," and I say that's where you are missing some subtleties here. A subject like Christianity does not need to be disambiguated because people understand that its various sub categories all fit under the same umbrella. Yes Roman Catholicism isn't exactly the same as Presbyterianism but they are both Christian because they share some core beliefs and practices in a manner that put them in the same subfamily of religion. Scholars and non-scholars understand this fact. Yet Soviet state atheism and the ideas espoused by the New Atheists are not understood to "share some core beliefs and practices" in a manner that puts them in the same subfamily of atheism. Certainly not by scholars. You could make the case that the conservative Christians who are also culture warriors believe that these concepts are related in that manner. That may be true, but we don't write encyclopedias based on what is politically expedient for one minority group.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the assessment of administrator, User:BD2412 - you hit the nail on the head. Just as the articles on Christianity and Islam cover different forms of a concept/ideology/religion, so does militant atheism. For example, the article on Christianity covers both the Crusades, as well as the formation of the World Council of Churches in the twentieth century, because both ideas are an expression of Christianity; the application is different. The same is true for militant atheism, which is a well defined academic concept, which can manifest itself in varying degrees. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, please stop trying to add authority to your arguments by pointing out that someone you agree with is an administrator. In the context of this discussion bd2412 is an editor just like the rest of us. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree that my admin status is of no matter with respect to my views about what should be done with this article. Second, let me make myslef clear that I could care less whether this article is deleted, redirected, split up, or otherwise disposed of. The sole concern that I have come here to express is that it is not appropriate for disambiguation. Slapping a disambig tag on a page for which incoming links are likely to be unfixable will only create a headache for disambiguators and lead to a whole new discussion process on the disambig project, which history suggests will result in either a different article or some sort of index ending up at this space anyway. Whatever is done with this space, can we avoid creating unnecessary arguments over policies (or "guidelines" arrived at after extensive community discussion) unrelated to the substance of the article? bd2412 T 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose splitting or making it into disambiguation page because "militant atheism" is a very common concept with a well-defined meaning (see User:Anupam's comments above). The article currently meets WP:RS and WP:V, and it does not violate WP:SYNTH. Geremia (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Militant atheism is very much NOT a well-defined concept. Not a single source gives a definition of "militant atheism", nor does this article. All any source does is say what is one or two ways of being a militant atheisT. Baginni, eg, calls hostility to religion "militant". One could call a flower pretty, but "flowery" does not define "pretty", though it can be one way of being pretty. The sources given give different ways atheists might be militant - hostility to all religion, desire to control or eliminate religion, a belief that society would be better without religion, some tendencies (which are a matter of degree, not of kind), (and even arguing vehemently) - but none even propose that they are giving complete characteristics that would distinguish militant atheisTs from all other atheisTs. --JimWae (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As an orthodox Jew, this has affected my community for some time now. I believe the article is well researched, and I know it on a personal level. I believe the people who want it deleted would only want that due to the term causing them personal offense. Again, the article is well researched, and I know this because it has affected those very close to me.Jwaxman1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Are you saying both state atheism and New atheists have harmed your community? This article treats them as if they were two equal-sized horns of the same devil. It does not distinguish the two, thus trivializing the suffering & persecution in the USSR--JimWae (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great turn of phrase! Well said. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:CONCEPTDAB: A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. A concept may not be reducible to a lexical entry, but since "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" what matters is whether RS can sustain an article explaining how the concept is discussed in various sources. The aim of a concept article is never to dictate a single "definition", but to inform the reader of the full range of discourse on the topic. Anupam demonstrates the availability of RS above. Any specific problems within the article should be addressed, but deficiency in the quality or completeness of an article is not grounds for its deletion or reduction to a dab or redirect. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    what matters is whether RS can sustain an article explaining how the concept is discussed in various sources. Indeed, but that's exactly the problem, because there are no reliable sources that "explain how the concept is discussed in various sources." There are just various usages in various sources. We cannot combine them ourselves and create our own discussion of how they are used in different sources. That is a violation of WP:SYNTH rather clearly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I see this as a misinterpretation of what synth says. It could be used to impugn almost any article that covers a broad topic, such as Religion, Neoplatonism, Republic, or any number of philosophical or literary concepts that exist in humanistic discourse rather than as a scientific topic with a technical or material reality. Synth says that sources should not be put together to advance an original interpretation, or in a way not intended by the sources. Simply representing the discourse of "militant atheism", that is, describing the various ways in which the concept is deployed, is not a synthesis: it's what any article on a concept does. The intro will be a summary of what the article says, but a summary is not a synthesis in the WP sense. Avoiding synth does not require the existence of a single source that represents or brings together all possible meanings of the concept at hand; otherwise, an article could just be a summary of a single source—but we tag single-source articles, and require multiple sources for notability. I haven't examined this article closely enough to see whether there are synthetic or original passages; if there are, they should be edited. But the existence of faults in an article is not grounds for either its deletion or its reduction to a dab or redirect; it just means the article needs work. I've seen synthesized topics that required deletion, where two things are brought together, each with a body of largely non-overlapping scholarship brought together to make an original point, but this isn't one of them: the concept is frequently expressed in just these words, and as the guideline above (WP:CONCEPTDAB) indicates, being "broad, vague, abstract or highly conceptual" is not a reason to reduce a concept article to a dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article should really be deleted or renamed, since "militant atheism" is just a juxtaposition of two words that does not have an established meaning. But that may not be feasible at the moment, and splitting the article is better than allowing this smear campaign against atheism to continue. Hans Adler 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. Several philosophers have defined the concept of militant atheism, as I, and others have pointed out. You can see all the original definitions by looking at my comment above, or by looking at the concepts section of the article. Every single one of the references corroborate one another. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the references you point to do talk about militant atheism, but none present definitions of it, nor do they even attempt to - they are merely giving flavours and tendencies. AND when they talk about it, they focus on one or the other - state atheism or new atheists - not both at once.--JimWae (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is where you are wrong. Kerry S. Walters, Julian Baggini, and Karl Rahner do not discuss state atheism or new atheism. They are simply defining an ideology. You can look at the references above, and see for yourself. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do not give definitions, they give partial lists of distinguishing tendencies within people - and they either focus on people called new atheists (Walters makes a direct slap at Weinberg) OR on state atheism, and do not say that what they present is sufficient to define both new atheists and state atheisms--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get the article to say that Dawkins and Stalin, for exxmple, share a common ideology (see your comment above), that they are reading from the same playbook, is the fundamental problem with this article. --JimWae (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the concept of "Militant Atheism" (not about just describing two simple words), and there were enough sources shown earlier, which explained that "Militant Atheism" is used to describe atheism which is in some way hostile towards religion. This is not an WP:SYNTH issue, and it is an obvious fact that "Militant Atheism" has been applied to multiple groups by sources, so it is relevant to mention them in an article called "Militant Atheism". And there are sources which speak about both, like the following: "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)...". The article does no confusion between state atheism and new atheism, and does not claim they were connected, the distinction between them looks clear enough. The article documents how the sources have used "militant atheism". But nonetheless, the distinction can be made more clearer, by improving the lead introduction. (And new articles titled "Militant atheism (state atheism)" and "Militant atheism (new atheism)" would probably end up merged with "State Atheism" and "New Atheism", which do not discuss about "Militant Atheism" as their main topic.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Militant atheism" is not a term. In most cases it is used synonymously with fucking annoying atheism, so it makes no sense to have an article about this combination of words. That leaves "militant atheism" as a descriptive title. As such it is POV because militancy has strong connotations of extreme violence which are far from being fair when applied to the people you are trying to smear with this article. Hans Adler 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section called "Concepts" in the article, which deals with this issue, but "Militant Atheism" has been described in sources as a doctrine, concept or ideology, and there are also the sources mentioned by Anupam earlier, so it is more than just two simple words. But nonetheless, the article states that the use of "militant atheism" to refer to the recent writers also known as the "new atheists" has also been pejorative, and there is no problem in this case (it could had been a POV issue if it was used as a title for the main article about "New Atheism", but the main topic of this article is not "New Atheism", this article is about "Militant Atheism"), and there are anyway articles on Wikiepdia dealing with pejorative terms (like "Papist" or "Islamofascism", which were mentioned in previous discussions). Cody7777777 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a problem here is distinguishing between describing a reality (is there actually "militant atheism" at large in the land?) and a discourse ("is there a concept of "militant atheism" floating around in contemporary or historical discourse?"). That's what makes it hard to write decent articles on such slippery topics (see the sentence from WP:CONCEPTDAB I qoted above). As far as I know, in the U.S. at least atheists are not engaging in "militant" actions. However, there is a great deal of talk about "militant atheism." The subject of this article is the discourse, as it is with any other concept. The existence of this article need not endorse the actuality of "militant atheism" (well, unless RS show such a thing to exist); however, the article should inform the reader who's just read the phrase somewhere and looks up "militant atheism" what this concept is about. We can't suppress the description of a verifiable concept because the concept may be erroneous; that's what guidelines such as WP:UNDUE are for. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cynwolfe - You're right. The big problem with the present article is precisely that it fails to acknowledge those niceties. Right there in the first sentence it says that there is a reality called militant atheism, and by the second sentence we are asked to believe that a bunch of objectively identifiable militant atheists do such-and-such, and are responsible for so-and-so. Above, I said I supported the move towards a DAB page or something similar. On reflection, I'd be happy to see an article on "militant atheism", as long as it was an honest one that acknowledged it as a phrase with many meanings (and indeed some potentially interesting cultural connotations), and carefully avoided turning it into a bogeyman founded on nothing more than a terminological coincidence. The recent history of the article, however, does not make me hopeful that such an adult and honest approach will last long. I fear that the article will continue to be used as a coatrack by those who feel compelled to use Wikipedia to push a viewpoint. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see your point. Some articles require sophisticated writing and editing in order to honor certain WP principles; that's sometimes a difficult task to reconcile with the "anyone can edit" ideal. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Hans Adler, he is simply incorrect. Organisations, such as the League of Militant Atheists attests to the fact that this word is not exclusively used pejoratively. Moreover, over hundred references in the article discuss the term militant atheism in this historical content. It is unacceptable to delete this article per WP:N. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subject is notable and established by sources. Article is not WP:SYNTH. Also per WP:CONCEPTDAB. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgia is also notable, but is a DAB. The sources focus on one area or the other; they do not treat militant atheism with the scope of both state atheism and outspoken atheists.--JimWae (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. I think I should point this out: [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I posted notices at Wikiproject:Religion and Wikiproject:Atheism I'm not going to start pointing fingers, but I would like to say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism has no relevance to this entry's subject matter at all. Could Lionel please explain why he posted there? Perhaps could he also explain why he wrote - "Don't miss out on the discussion of the year!" Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While were are at it, what does this entry have to do with the LDS? Why did you post your message at WikiProject:Latter Day Saint movement? I understand Wikiproject Christianity, and more specifically Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because at least they relate to the state atheism materials to some degree or another. But the LDS? Why not the Wikiprojects of more liberal protestant sects?Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is simple; to ensure that the right kind of people would vote. How many people associated with such projects have supported, and how many have opposed? Between that and the arrival of suspicious new SPAs, can the opposition be taken seriously? I think not. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what I think, but I wanted editors here to know what's going on. And I have asked at WP:ANI for administrators to evaluate this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support stubbing/dabbing: This article conflates two different concepts. There may be some need to retain the article to clearly delineate the separate concepts by briefly summarizing the main articles and adding some higher level context. We don't need an extensive article which rehashes the particulars of state atheism and new atheism, while simultaneously conflating the two different topics. aprock (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something isn't right about this article as currently structured, although it's hard to put my finger on it. It seems just a bit too eager to link Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to Stalin and Chairman Mao. It's as if our article on fascism stated: "Fascism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology. People who have been described as fascists include Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh." That is true, and even verifiable, but it leaves something to be desired nonetheless. MastCell Talk 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You put your finger on exactly what I was thinking, and explained it much better than I could. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. And I'll add that, in my opinion, the article itself exemplifies exactly the perjurative use of the term "militant atheism" that's in dispute.Jkhwiki (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Long overdue. The issues raised here have been consistently ignored in discussion. Many editors are simply voting, flatly asserting that the article is fine, but without addressing these fundamental problems. Chiefly, for all the sources Anupam has presented, none use the same scope in applying "militant atheism" to both New Atheism and persecution in the USSR, as our article does. Most recently, I pointed this out on Sep 15, with no response, but I also raised the issue earlier, including back in July, on the 14th (no response), and the 20th. And that's just me... don't forget JimWae, Griswaldo, ArtifexMahem, SNALWIMBA, Binksternet and others, as well as editors driven off the page by the IDHT and OWN attitude so prevalent here. Instead of honest discussion, we end up plagued with SPAs and canvassing (which I'll note isn't the first time). The fact is, these problems are unsolvable, because at the root of the article is a synthesis of sources, either discussing a limited context, or not defining the juxtaposition at all. WP:NOTDICT is clear: There are two concepts here, one of very real and horrendous persecution of theists by state atheism in the USSR, and one of a small group of scientists and authors who speak out against religious terrorism and put up billboards. That they are labelled with the same brush by different people is no more cause for a single article than for "cloud", or "georgia". I don't think a disambig page is the best option, but it's better than what we have now. I would prefer splitting content between state atheism and New Atheism, or Militant atheism (state atheism), or one of the other proposals mentioned here. Either way, the article is a coatrack of disparate concepts, synthesized to make a point about public atheism which no single ref supports, and it needs to go.   — Jess· Δ 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The RfC is worded poorly. It asks "Should this article be split, or changed to a disambig page?", and the replies are generally either "Support" or "Oppose", and it is not clear what "Support" is supporting: Splitting? Disambig? Either? Better would be to recast the RfC as a yes/no question, so that Support/Oppose have some meaning. I gather, from reading the responses, that the RfC is trying to ask: "Should this article be eliminated either entirely or partially (by moving some or all of the content into other articles such as .... )?" --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added an alternative phrasing to the top of the RfC .. I hope it clarifies it for uninvolved editors. --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Agree with Jess and others. This article just uses a no well defined umbrella term to link into one article very different things. From political movements to philosophical musing ending with its use by the press to describe vocal atheist in current times. The concepts section is laughable and schizophrenic at the same time and ultimately it is the root of the problem with this article. Militant atheism is whatever the writer using the term wished it to be as there is no clear definition. You could make equally strong cases for assigning the term to anyone making a public statement of being an atheist or to someone actively killing priests with the help of a sponsor state.--LexCorp (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Three articles on a given topic are one too many. I'm referring to State atheism, Militant atheism, and New atheism. There is just too much overlap. We are not doing the readers of WP any favors by such multiplicity. I'd recommend eliminating Militant atheism and merging its contents into other articles. (And I agree that "militant atheism" is indeed a subject discussed by sources ... but it could simply be section in one of the other articles). --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After reading most of this section, I think it should be a dab page. A few links to State, New, etc. atheism, each with a small sentence describing it is what will serve the reader best. A person who comes here after reading about Stalin is looking for something totally different than someone researching Dawkins. It's even a bit of a BLP issue for the ones alive. "Dawkins and Stalin are two types of miltant atheists." is one way to summarize this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - splitting this article in multiple revelent articles is the only way to bring some sanity. There is no-way there will be consensus achieved in having a single article, which represents multiple things historically. This article had became WP:COATRACK for religious POV. 131.107.0.81 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I created an account just to oppose this slanted discussion. Any educated individual is going to realize that there are different degrees of militant atheism and the article is sectioned off to show it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealdowntome123 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the feeling that some of the "oppose"s feel that Dawkins is on the same spectrum as Stalin. Kinda like having a giant army is what separates state atheism from new atheism. Yikes. This is convincing me even more that this article should just be a dab. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is something very fishy about Nealdowntome123's contribution to this discussion. Please see User talk:Nealdowntome123 where I've broached the subject with him/her. I suspect either sock or meat puppetry going on here.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy enough to discount the new user's contribution as he did not provide any leverage for his argument. There's no need to bother about WP:SPI, yet. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support splitting the content, preferably into existing articles. Mixing Soviet-style state-driven 'militant atheism' with modern activism-style 'militant atheism' is like writing an article that says 'Paris is the capital of France, and is also an American celebrity and Hilton empire heir'. The concepts are distinct and unrelated. As a neutral editor to this dispute, I will also point out that I've read through the majority of this talk page and I'm gravely concerned with efforts by particular editors to attempt to suppress newly forming consensus on the basis that prior consensus is somehow sacred, WP:CANVASSing and possibly even bringing in WP:MEAT-puppets. This kind of conduct really is unacceptable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, the example mentioned earlier "Paris is the capital of France, and is also an American celebrity and Hilton empire heir" does not appear to apply here, since in the first case it refers to a city, while in the other case it refers to a person. In this case, "Militant Atheism" refers to a concept or ideology, which has been used to refer to atheism which is in some way hostile to religion. Cynwolfe has explained clearly enough why this is not a synthesis issue, and as said before, it is obvious enough that "Militant Atheism" has been applied by sources, to multiple groups, because of some hostility to religion, and these groups have sought in some way to promote atheism (and there are sources which mention both state atheists, and the recent writers also known as the "new atheists", "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)..."). If the sources are doing a mistake, it is not our job to correct them (this is simply a fact that happens in the world, and I do not really understand why it cannot be documented on Wikipedia). Also, the articles about "New Atheism" and "State Atheism" do not discuss about "Militant Atheism" as their main topic (and splitting the article would also make it more difficult for readers interested in learning more about this topic and its uses). (I do not like to give such examples, but Wikipedia also has an article titled "Fuck", which is not about some concept or ideology, it just explains the multiple and unrelated uses of that expression, many which are negative uses.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is it's not like Paris, France and Paris Hilton. Instead you're saying it's more like Paris, France and Paris, Texas. Got it. aprock (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This example also does not seem to apply here. The concept of "Militant Atheism" has been described by sources as referring to atheism which is in some way hostile to religion. I have not seen yet a radically different description about it. A "Militant Atheism" which is not hostile to religion and does not seek to promote atheism could be a different ideology of "Militant Atheism", just like Paris, the capital of France, is a different city from Paris in Texas. But anyway, articles about concepts or ideologies are not treated quite the same way like those about cities or people. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a much better analogy was put forth by MastCell just a little way up: "Fascism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology. People who have been described as fascists include Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a very good example either, since Rush Limbaugh does not look like an important fascist. The recent writers Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, also known as the "new atheists", have been identified as militant atheists who have an influential activity in promoting atheism. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As editors like me, who have not previously been following this page closely, can see, there's a lot of POV judgment that goes into saying that the many verifiable sources that call Limbaugh a fascist are POV (which they are!) but the sources that call the new atheists "militant" are just as neutral as those that use the word to describe Stalin or Mao (which they are not). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that there is not even prior consensus --- there has never been any consensus on this article --- just prior discussions that were closed without consensus.Jkhwiki (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:TechnoSymbiosis, thanks for your comments. I would like to bring up the fact that if thoroughly looked at the talk page, you would also notice the several single purpose accounts that are used to support the other side of the debate as well, as well as canvassing efforts (not to say that this makes it right). For example, Jkhwiki (talk · contribs), Obhave (talk · contribs), Runirokk (talk · contribs), Devilishlyhandsome (talk · contribs), et. al are single purpose accounts who have participated in these discussions, championing deletion and/or splitting of this article. User:Abhishikt canvassed another editor for aid, as recently did User:Griswaldo, who also made threats to the reviewing administrator of this page (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two). Moreover, User:Devilishlyhandsome, another single purpose account, made real-life threats related to this issue. User:Lionelt simply informed WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects that this relevant RfC was occurring only after User:Griswaldo already contacted WikiProject Atheism. Moreover, recent consensus was formed on several issues, such as the Introduction and Word Razor, as confirmed by the reviewing administrator of the article, who was mediating issues between the two parties. I do not bring these issues up to point fingers, but to simply inform arriving editors that unnacceptable behaviour can be found on both sides of the debate. Once again, thanks for your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct your distortion. I did not "canvass another editor" which is what your text currently claimed. I notified Wikiproject:Atheism. If you want to argue that this is canvassing at least be accurate enough to say that I canvassed a WikiProject, not a person. Also, please stop claiming I made threats to another editor. If you, or MoP thinks that I have made threats then take it up on ANI, but continually smearing me with this claim as part of an argument is out of line. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anupam, would you care to point out any instance of unnacceptable behavior on my part?Jkhwiki (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Jkhwiki, you haven't engaged in any unacceptable behaviour. Your contributions here are appreciated. I was simply pointing out that there are single purpose accounts, such as yourself, on both sides of the discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, that account of events is so seriously distorted, it's really difficult for me to assume good faith. Obhave is not a SPA by any stretch, Lionelt did not simply "inform WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects" - he picked a few he liked and informed those, including WikiProject Conservatism, Abhishikt did not canvass - he contacted a previously involved admin to ask for input, something which you've personally done multiple times, nor was Griswaldo canvassing when he posted a notice to this article's primary WikiProject about a public RfC. You've made so many errors, I'm having a hard time seeing them as simple mistakes and omissions. Please stop posting things like this. It doesn't make "your side" look more reasonable; it just makes it look like you have a "my side vs theirs" mentality, and are defending improper behavior by distorting the truth. That's not good.   — Jess· Δ 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the canvassing issue, I'll also mention in this discussion, what I said here. When Lionelt posted that comment, WP:WikiProject Conservatism was still listed as a project interested in this article, and it was listed along wth WP:WikiProject Christianity, WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WP:WikiProject Catholicism, and others, for some months. (And in my opinion most of them should remain mentioned, since it is obvious this article discusses about issues which also involve Christianity and other religions).We do not need to assume that editors interested about discussing this issue could be found only at WP:WikiProject Atheism or WP:WikiProject Religion, and the comments posted at the contacted WikiProjects were neutral (and if there are no interested editors at these WikiProjects, they will probably just ignore the notification). But we should probably just wait and see what the administrators think about this. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a split, if that is the way to sweep away this sorry mess. I've been away for a long time, but I note that my last contribution to Wikipedia was none other than a comment on this talk page, 18 months ago! The article was bad then, and in some ways it's worse now - and certainly the shenanigans surrounding it is even more disgraceful now than it was then. The article looks good - it is now dressed up in an impressive array of "reliable" and "verifiable" sources and footnotes, all the trappings of scholarship. (In fact, well over half the text is in the footnotes, which is ridiculous, as someone said above.) But what is behind this "scholarship"? It is all phony, bringing together an array of disparate things that have nothing in common except that they all happen to use the word "militant" alongside the word "atheism". There is no definition, there is no agreement on a unified concept, there are just a couple of words. I assume a lot of the article is the result of some googling and synthesis of a wide range of stuff that happens to use those two words, but there is no substance in the conflation of the communist/atheist regimes and today's "new atheists". Each of those on their own merits an article - and indeed each of them has one. So why is this article here? I conclude that its main purpose is to act as a platform for pushing an antiatheist agenda. This has to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advocacy on behalf of the victims of Stalin/Mao/Dawkins. Gnusmas (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: If this article becomes a disambiguation page, who will take responsibility for fixing all the incoming links? bd2412 T 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted for dab, and so I will take the task if necessary. Certainly, I will help. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • about 98 articles link to this article[6] - only 13 of which seem to be about state atheism. About 6 of the articles are redirects. A very doable task--JimWae (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. My concern, of course, was that the change would be carried out, and the mess would be left for others to clean up (as has happened with similar decisions in the past). bd2412 T 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the old drafts and updated the irreligion template. aprock (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Because this article is up for deletion and conversion into a disambiguation page, I have requested that this RfC be included in the deletion lists of relevant projects. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the head count? Might be good to know for further discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 individuals support some kind of split thus far. 12 individuals oppose any kind of split and wish to retain the article in its present form. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a disambiguation and moving text on state atheism into the many other articles that already cover the topic (such as State atheism). Btw, a simple head count is not the way to see if consensus has been established. Several "votes" are given with reasoning being WP:N - but WP:N has no relevance to whether or not a page ought to be a disambig page. Also, nobody has presented even one reliable source that treats "miltant atheism" with the same wild scope that this article has been doing, (sources focus on state atheism or arguers) so "votes" based on "it is well-sourced" also have no foundation. "Militant atheism" has hurt my community" does not address any issues, and is also not a cogent argument. --JimWae (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split, disam, et al. Having been over the "sources", again again, I still, still, find nothing but WP:SYNTH. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the condition that it's a disambiguation to State Atheism with a relevant subsection added to the State Atheism article. Because let's face it, in very single instance of State Atheism, militant atheism has been rampant in one form or another. They are essentially the same. Militant Atheism is a reality. It exists. The slippery, slimey, sanctimonious bunch who want Atheism to have a shinney, scientific, United Federation of Planets reputation can't have it, because history speaks for itself. Take the intellectually honest route, not the Atheist vs Christian route, or "because I'm an Athiest Atheism is flawless" route. Do what's best to educate people, not eradicate the black spots on your worldview's respective histories. If people are just trying to hide the past (shame on you, go hang out with the Holocaust Deniers) then I Strongly Oppose. --Jesspiper (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Jesspiper, you stated that ,"Militant atheism is a reality. It exists." Nevertheless, you voted to merge this article with "state atheism." Because militant atheism is an identifiable concept, which philosophers have defined (see the concepts section of the article and note the reliable sources therein), then why does not "militant atheism" deserve its own article? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do NOT contain even one definition - they are just characterizations and observations on ways to be called a "militant atheist". The sources also focus on either state atheism or atheist debaters - they do not take the wild scope of this article and lump the two groups together. --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider State Atheism and Militant Atheism to be one and the same. I'm not saying Militant Atheism doesn't deserve its own article, but it also seems at home with State Atheism. As long as it's handled honestly, I could go either way. But like I said, I'm Strongly Opposed to any merger or disambiguation if this is just about the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of people not being able to admit these historical truths.--Jesspiper (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Jesspiper, thanks for your response! You stated that "I'm not saying Militant Atheism doesn't deserve its own article." However, you voted in support to turn this article into a disambiguation page. What kind of things should be retained at this article, in your opinion? Also, if militant atheism is the same as state atheism, can an individual not hold the position of militant atheism? Can only a state hold that position? I hope you are understand my point here. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did say support, but with very specific conditions. Calling someone like Daniel Dennett "militant" is utterly preposterous. That's the part of the article that is useless. They are called New Atheists, not Militant ones. Writing books and doing TV interviews doesn't make one militant. It also takes the spotlight away from the true and objective danger that Atheists and Atheism represents: when they gain governance over other people. That's when the true militancy happens. Sure people call them that, but that's just ignorant in light of the actual militant atrocities comitted by Atheists in the Spanish Red Terror, for example. That is militancy. Most, if not all, of these militant acts were carried out in Atheist States or during events that aimed at creating them. Sure individuals can be militant in ideology, but true militancy happens when they band together and try to seize or gain governance. Then the rivers of blood flow, as history has shown over and over.--Jesspiper (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Militant Atheism" has been described by sources as being in some way hostile to religion and in some way seeking to promote Atheism. I have not seen yet a radically different description shown about this topic (as one claiming that "Militant Atheism" is not hostile to religion and does not seek to promote atheism). "State Atheism" is not the same concept, even if many "state atheists" were also "militant atheists", and there is no description claiming that "Militant Atheism" can apply only to "State Atheism". It is obvious enough that "Militant Atheism" has been applied by sources, to multiple groups (not just to "state atheists"), because of some hostility to religion, and these groups have sought in some way to promote atheism (and there are sources which mention both "state atheists" and "new atheists", "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)..."). Also, Cynwolfe has explained clearly enough why this is not a synthesis issue, in his earlier post. And if the sources are doing a mistake to call the "new atheists" (who have an influential activity in promoting atheism) as "militant atheists", is not our job to correct them, and the article just documents how the sources have used "Militant Atheism". (It is not claimed in the article, that the "new atheists" are also "state atheists", but an article about "Militant Atheism" cannot ignore the fact that the "new atheists" were also identified as "militant atheists".) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit suggestion

Hi all, just passing through. I noticed in the lede Sam Harris is currently linked to a disambiguation page. This should probably link to Sam Harris (author). If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it. causa sui (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring over WikiProjects

Start discussing the project issue on the talk page, and stop edit warring. I can see why the article is locked. We've got five users tag teaming each other on both sides of the content:

Both Snalwibma's and Anupam's reverts are clearly edit warring. Geremia and Mann jess should have both started discussion after their reverts, and Cody7777777 should have taken this to talk before his revert. Everyone stop, calm down, and start discussing. aprock (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aprock, User:Cody7777777 actually did inform the reverting users about the mistake. Please see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not links to the article talk page. You yourself restored the content for a third time, clearly edit warring. Even discussion on this talk page wouldn't support that sort of disruptive behavior. Discussion on other pages certainly does not excuse any of the disruptive reverts. aprock (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was helpful for User:Cody7777777 to inform the reverting users personally as he did. I correctly restored the relevant templates after there was no more objection at the reverting users' talk page, referring to User:Cody7777777's explanation in my edit summary. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of debating the degree to which you think your third restoration does or does not constitute edit warring, why not discuss the issue you were reverting over? aprock (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Aprock, the issue was already resolved as the reverting user placed no further objections on his talk page after User:Cody7777777 explained to him why the projects are relevant. As such, I saw no need to add an additional comment. I apologize if I caused you any inconvenience. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you don't want to discuss the issue on the talk page. That's fine. Your disruptive edits have caused me no inconvenience. aprock (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you misunderstood my reply. As User:Cody7777777 explained, WikiProject Christianity (and its workgroups), as well as WikiProject Islam are relevant to this article because they were directly involved in the events described in the article: see the section on Soviet Bloc to provide the context for my comment. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think aprock misunderstood you. I think you are dancing around the issue of edit warring, that is, not admitting your own edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek was correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my hastiness in reverting. I can see why the page should be tagged with fairly high-level categories relating to christianity and islam, and also a few specific flavours of these, such as eastern orthodox, which is directly relevant in the case of the soviet bloc etc - but why is there any need to get as specific as catholic/protestant, and why on earth the seventh-day adventists, the lutherans, etc? And why not buddhism, hinduism, shinto, etc etc? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you ask, there is an appearance that it skews towards those religions that are most likely to regard the New Atheists in a negative light, and skews away from those that are less likely to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I reverted on the basis that (at that time) no one but Geremia objected to the removal, Geremia didn't provide a reason for his revert (except to question why it was done), and there seemed to be agreement here and on ANI that the wikiprojects were inappropriate. I pointed to the ANI discussion in my edit summary to answer his question, and hoped that if Geremia still objected, he would open discussion here. I agree, the subsequent edit warring was unhelpful. Talk page content isn't that big of a deal, guys. I do understand the reasons presented to keep the wikiprojects, and I understand the reasons to remove them. I have to say I find the reasons to remove more compelling. That is to say, there is the appearance that this article has been placed in certain wikiprojects to ensure a certain demographic of editors watch over it, rather than to group it in categories that intersect with its domain. For instance, why add the Baptists workgroup, but not add WikiProject History? I have to agree with Sarek, and that appears to be the consensus thus far. The only explanation of keeping the projects I see was made by Tryptofish, who also agrees with Sarek. I'd urge those supporting the projects be kept to actually discuss the issues here, rather than edit warring over their removal. All the best,   — Jess· Δ 20:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states "In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church." This statement is supported by two sources. Seventh Day Adventists are also important here for the same reason; according to Ukraine and the Subjugated Nations:

The Soviet press likewise attacks the Mennonites, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and many others, which they accuse...

It's not helpful to remove involved projects from this talk page. Already, three different editors have reverted the removal of these project templates from the talk page. In response to User:Snalwibma's comment, I would have no objection to the addition of other pertinent WikiProjects here, such as WikiProject Buddhism, as they too are relevant to the article. However, removing other templates, because certain ones are not present now, is inappropriate. Moreover, there was no consensus at ANI to remove the projects; the only project that was contested was WikiProject Conservatism. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've listed a couple denominations that get a single mention in the article, and according to you, the Adventists aren't even mentioned at all, save alongside "the soviets" in a book we're not even using. (BTW, I checked your link, and it turned up nothing). Then there's the ones you've left out, like Anglicanism, which I'll take it don't even have that rationale. But whatever. This seems pointless to discuss if the article will be split. If it's still here after the RfC, then we can reopen this discussion. I will note that it seems unlikely keeping Christianity and Islam wikiprojects at high importance won't continue to sway the demographic of of voters on this page, which alongside the canvassing seems inappropriate, particularly given the level of support for removing them. But, frankly, I have better things to do with my time.   — Jess· Δ 01:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uneven treatment

Anupam, you realize that User:SarekOfVulcan is an administrator right? I am asking you this because while you have been commanding us all to treat "reviewing administrator Master of Puppet's" opinions like they are the law apparently SarekOfVulcan's are to be treated like chopped liver. Why is that Anupam? Why is it that when an administrator steps in and disagrees with you, like Sarek when he removed those Wikiprojects, you take a different tone about administrative authority?Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "administrator" thing works the same way as the "consensus" thing. Edits that anupam disagrees with must be reverted because they are against "Consensus", and against the word of whichever administrator once agreed with anupam. On the other hand, if anupam agrees with an edit, it's simply accepted; neither consensus nor administrative support is required. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at the end of my rope with these antics. User:Lionelt is now going around trying to drum up support against me personally at talk pages he has never edited before but clearly found in my edit history. I've reported him to WP:WQA but I'm not sure how much longer I can tolerate this kind of crap. Why is it being tolerated?Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]