Talk:Militant atheism

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

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)

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).

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Support. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced compromise. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 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)

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, Anupam^Talk 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Hans Adler 21:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly so. Remove New Atheism. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good point about the two terms. Modified my statement above. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 17:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 1,380 sources on Google Scholar for the term "militant atheism". NYyankees51 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 26,300 sources for the term "tall building".   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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:

• For the historical Soviet organization, see League of Militant Atheists.
• For modern atheist writers sometimes termed "militant atheists" by their critics, see New Atheism.
• For opposition to religious involvement in politics, see Laïcité and Secularism.
• For the general topic of opposition to religion, see Antireligion.

(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)

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, Anupam^Talk 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 20:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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, Anupam^Talk 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 04:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 01:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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, Anupam^Talk 04:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 04:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[2]] could we find that context?Turnsalso (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I must congratulate anupam on their extension of 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.
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. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Bobrayner, from the start of the 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, Anupam^Talk 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk

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)