Talk:Militant atheism

Introduction

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link here-->[1] PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support There is no conflation, there is mention of the two applications of the term. It can't get much less conflated without saying "some people apply 'militant atheism' to the New Atheism movement, but that's just silly." Turnsalso (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• SupportIt is well written, and clarifies the well sourced uses of the term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References

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

Closure of Introduction Issue and Word Razor Solution

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite formatting: google books and quote parameter

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! Which citations did you remove specifically? Also, one thing you must realize is that this is an article that is controversial. The material that has stayed in the article must discuss militant atheism specifically and the quotes are in the references to ensure that the statements in the article are verifiable. You can look through the archives to see that this has been discussed before. I do not wish to personally revert your removal of some of the quotes because that would revert your other work as well. Since you are new to this article, I would like to inform you of the page notice, that one of the reviewing administrators, User:Master of Puppets, added to the article. It has been added so users will discuss major changes to the article before implementing them. For example, the introduction of the article was discussed above and was then added to the article. I would kindly request that you please reinstate the quotes and references you removed. I would really appreciate it! Other than that, good job on adding the page numbers and year of publication to the references. The introduction was developed after months of discussion. The introduction originally made reference to the New Atheism movement, specifically. However, it was decided to explicitly list those belonging in the movement in the introduction rather than listing the movement (please see the archives). I would suggest reinstating the original introduction and discussing your proposed changes and reasoning behind changing it on the talk page to see if it gains consensus. I personally do not want to revert because you have made valuable edits. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly new to the article; I participated on the talk page a month ago, now in archive 4.

Your question about which citations exactly did I delete is a revealing one. The citations in this article are far too unwieldy, and such a simple question is not easy for people to determine by looking at the diff.

I removed duplicate refs, ones which were unneeded because they supported the same quote. I consolidated duplicate cites.

In terms of "major changes", I do not consider my cite formatting to be major. I do not consider summarizing a sentence in the lead section to be major, especially since that sentence was an exact duplicate of one in the article body, so I did not remove information from the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I removed the following cite:

• Jean-François Marmontel. Marmontel's Moral Tales. Ballantyne, Hanson & Co. It certainly stopped altogether short of the militant atheism of the Holbachian coterie ; and it may be doubtful whether, except in the ardour of the novitiate, it reached Voltaire's dislike of positive creeds.

It supported the same text as the preceding cite which I kept:

• George Saintsbury. Prefaces and Essays. Macmillan Publishers. It certainly stopped altogether short of the militant atheism of the Holbachian coterie; and it may be doubtful whether, except in the ardour of the novitiate, it reached Voltaire's dislike of positive creeds.

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

Why remove the second reference? The publishing company is different and it supports the assertion to ensure verifiability. I would request that you please reinstate references such as this one, that you have removed. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, duplicate cites clog the article, helping to make it a pig to load and a bear to navigate. One good cite is enough to nail down a fact. One! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is an article which covers a controversial topic. Citations from different authors and publishers help support extraordinary claims. How many such references have you removed from the article? I would appreciate if you could let me know. I look forward to your reply. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, controversial topics do not need any more support in their stated facts than other topics. Erecting a wall of quantity is not the way to build an article; it goes against Wikipedia:Article size. One or two quality cites are better than multiple cites. In fact, the essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles only mentions one cite per fact: "When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source." If there's a particularly "non-centrist" fact to support, "it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives." What is not desirable is to repeat the same exact quote in more than one source. Right, the guy said that. We get it. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:V is why these two sources are included, not trying to synthesize an article via a wall of quantity. WP:RS says: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires in-line citations 'for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.'" The use of multiple sources for the same quote indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement (especially important considering its likelihood of being challenged), because of its greater degree of documentation, more readily verifiable. Turnsalso (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dispute discussion

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

Violation of WP:3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

As there is ongoing discussion to improve the article, and Abhishikt is not able to explain the rationale behind the concerns, I am taking this page off my watchlist. If anyone wishes to contact me, please nudge my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of CANVASS

Since we're on the topic of violations I'd like to point out that Abhiskit's communication with SilkTork is a violation of WP:CANVASS.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with that statement actually. The other 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, Anupam^Talk 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the change. There are a great many Jesuit scholars in a great many fields. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lead paragraph - unresolved

The problem in the lead lies in the way that opinion is turned into fact. There is no clearly identified single entity called militant atheism, there are only various styles/grades/flavours of atheism that various people, meaning various slightly different things, have at various times labelled "militant". The article must reflect this, and for the most part it doesn't do too bad a job. But the opening couple of sentences are a real problem. The first sentence ("Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile...") is OK (though I would prefer something like "...atheism that is perceived to be hostile..."). But then in the second sentence ("Militant atheism regards itself ... and differs ...") it is suddenly assumed that there is an objectively identifiable thing called "militant atheism". Maybe the solution is as simple as merging the first two sentences - to something like "Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is perceived as hostile towards religion,[refs] to atheism that regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated,[refs] or to atheism that differs from more moderate atheism in holding religion to be harmful.[refs]" Thoughts, anyone? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Snalwibma, I appreciate your desire to improve the article. I hope you will not see my comments as being offensive, but will realize where I am coming from. Only a few days ago, the current lead paragraph was discussed and closed as supported by an administrator. It is not appropriate to re-start discussion of the same topic, when consensus on the issue was just recently built. Had your version of an introduction been accepted, I also would have to respect that and move on to addressing other concerns with the article, if there be any. In fact, several various proposals that I suggested for this article have been rejected by consensus and I have had to accept this fact and move on (see WP:STICK). I really do appreciate your efforts to improve the article but hope you understand this point. Our own assessment of the definition of militant atheism is not relevant; rather, what philosophers have defined it as is what is relevant per WP:RS and WP:V. As such, the current definition is supported by SIX scholarly references. This should be taken into account. Above, User:JimWae expressed some concerns about slightly modifying the introduction if consensus supports this. I would suggest working with us above. I hope this helps and once again, I value your contributions and efforts into amerliorating this article. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - but the discussion took place entirely when I guess many people (such as I) were away on summer holiday and not spending time on WP. But in any case, if there is a problem with the article - as I insist there is - then the fact that a previous discussion was "closed" is irrelevant. Now, how do you address my central concern, that there is no such thing as a single agreed-upon definition of "militant atheism", and therefore any statements about what it "is" and "does" have to be more circumspect, expressed in terms not of facts but of the opinions that various people have expressed? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is unsatisfactory. I agree that new discussion is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is unsatisfactory. I'll also point out that a proposal being closed (or even weakly supported) does not mean further discussion on the section can't be had... It is absurd to suggest as much, or indicate that the variety of editors wishing to have discussion are violating WP:STICK. Further, 6 editors supporting against 4 opposing is not consensus, and even the closing admin indicated it had only weak support, noting that further discussion should continue. As I've stated above, repeatedly, this lead does not address any of the issues we've been hashing out recently. JimWae's proposal does a better job of that, and trying to shut out his proposal because "we have consensus for this version" is absurd and borderline tendentious.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the synthesis morph. The JimWae version also reads much better. My high-school English teachers would cringe at the current tortured wording — especially "Militant atheism regards itself as...". Mojoworker (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Historically, the main usage of the term 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 French Revolution, the Soviet Union, and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The term militant atheist has also been applied to various political thinkers. Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger (writers often identified as New Atheists), who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers.

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."

References

• 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, Anupam^Talk 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

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, Anupam^Talk 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The intro by Anupam is clear and concise and well referenced.ClassArm (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - see below: A few points about above proposals:--JimWae (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

• You make great points. Can you compose the JimWae version of the lead? Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)