| Revision as of 22:09, 27 June 2011 editAnupam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,268 edits →Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article.: comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:18, 10 November 2024 edit undoWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators401,379 edits not a bio |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old XfD multi|page=Militant atheism|date=11 February 2012|result='''redirect'''}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism}} |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|anglicanism=yes|baptist-work-group=yes|methodism-work-group=yes|catholicism=yes|lutheranism=yes|eastern-orthodoxy=yes|oriental-orthodoxy=yes}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
{{WikiProject Islam}}}} |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
militant atheism. aka one of the last hopes for a world based on reason and rational thought instead of idolatry and superstition. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Militant atheism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Protected edit request on 15 December 2022 == |
|
==(random heading)== |
|
|
''(inserted for readability ] dixit. (]!) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC))'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit fully-protected|Militant atheism|answered=yes}} |
|
I am concerned of the presentation of non-believers on wikipedia overall. The anti-theism page has long arguments of people trying to get references to violence on the page. This page is despite the short "concerns" section largely devoted to describe "militant atheism" bordering on the atrocities of stalinism with multiple links of persecutions of christians features in the article. |
|
|
|
Please replace the content with the following: |
|
|
<blockquote><code><nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki><br><nowiki> |
|
|
</nowiki><br><nowiki> |
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|</nowiki><br><nowiki> |
|
|
{{R with history}}</nowiki><br><nowiki> |
|
|
}}</nowiki></code> |
|
|
</blockquote>...To add the {{Tl|R with history}} ] template to the page. Thanks! ] (]) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Short description needed == |
|
Yet one cannot find references to the atrocities committed by christians in the main pages on Christianity. |
|
|
|
{{sudo|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|xaosflux}} Please add |
|
I have the very strong impression that the presentation of non-believers is NPOV in the sense that the old stereotype that non-believers are heritics, evil, infidels and not worthy is perpetuated and that they are intentionally linked to violence and harm that is only mildly associated, such as stalinism. |
|
|
|
* <nowiki>{{Short description|Soviet Russian organization}}</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
tyvm. --] (]) 14:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
If the notion of wikipedia is to put the atrocities of each group on the front page, then that should be consistent and the persecution of non-believers in religions should be featured as prominently as the persecution of christians in stalinism and maoism is featured here. It muddles atheism and the general dogma-inducing tendencies of Stalin and Mao. Stalin and Mao prosecuted every group that would not convert to their dogma, including atheists in opposition, such as Trotzky. Yet there is a narrative being pushed that tries to paint stalinism as a primarily anti-religious pogrom, primarily to paint criticism of religion in a negative light. |
|
|
|
:Leaving this open for someone patrolling edit requests. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] ], what makes this one special? — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
For example numerous christian apologist have tried to link Dawkins criticism of religion to Stalinism, which is ludicrous. That feel is very much implied in this article when soviet "militant atheism" and Dawkins appear in the very same sentence! |
|
|
|
::Nothing, my mistake. I was thinking of "redirects to section or anchor", which do need their own SDs. |
|
|
|
|
|
::To be more precise, {{tl|annotated link}} "reads through" to the SD on the redirect target, so doesn't require an SD on the redirector. I don't know if the same is true of the Misplaced Pages app. --] (]) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
Also there is no page on militant christinity, militant islam, militant hinduism etc, clearly singling out atheism as militant. However studies show that in the US the rate of violent crime is among the lowest among unbelievers. This isn't a fix for this page but there is a larger overhaul needed that levels this out. Frankly I think the word militant atheism is very questionable and deserves less of a wikipedia entry than say militant islamists (which incidentally does not exist and is redirected to islamic terror, which is not well related). |
|
|
|
|
|
If it was me I'd simply remove the article. The notion of "militant atheism" isn't interesting and distinct enough to "anti-theism" to warrant a separate page, but there is a lot of information here that may be worth merging. Non-believers have very scattered labels and perhaps the whole topic needs to be reorganised. For example anti-theism and "militant atheism" could be a subsection to secular humanism, or to non-believers etc. ] (]) |
|
|
:This article is a POV pushing piece full of OR and SYN. I will support a deletion or merging the notable parts into anti-theism.--] (]) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I support a deletion or merge into the antitheism page. I'd also like to address another issue, while we are on the topic of antitheism; why is it that anti-atheism redirects the reader to the page Criticisms of Atheisms, but antitheism doesn't redirect you to the page Criticisms of Theism? Further, why in the world isn't there even a PAGE with the topic Criticisms of Theism?! This whole thing stinks to high hell of POV. |
|
|
|
|
|
Issues that should be reconciled: |
|
|
1. A deletion or merge of Militant Atheism to the Antitheism page |
|
|
2. If that can't be done than I suggest a creation of a Militant Christianity, Militant Islam etc page, it is not difficult to find examples |
|
|
3. The creation of a Crtiticisms of Theism page, I'm most surprised that this page doesn't even exist at the moment! |
|
|
4. Out of fairness for all parties involved, and in the pursuit of great justice, if items 2 and 3 are not addressed and remedied I support a deletion of the pages Militant Atheism AND Antitheism. I mean, what is this? Conservapedia?! ] (]) 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] maybe. WP have an article on ] but not on ]. The article adds "militant" to the valid topic of ], why is there no ]? I'll put the article on ]. ] dixit. (]!) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, oh wow. You guys are terrible. This article is encyclopedia worthy, imho. Or at least the topic is. ] 05:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please stay ]. Also if you look at the talk archive you will find that this is not exactly a new problem. --] (]) 08:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Concerns about the use of the term== |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that Larry Trask's assertion that the term militant is never used in relation to Christianity should be removed since it is demonstrably false. It has been used in the discussion of this page (above) and Google produces over 4,000 results for the exact phrase. Since this article seeks to define militant atheism and not the views of Larry Trask, the inclusion of his false assertion is both irrelevant and breaches NPOV. ] (]) 11:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Show a link from a reliable source to demonstrate what you say. ] (]) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Larry Trask asserts that the term militant is never used in relation to Christianity. As the term "militant Christianity" appears in the discussion of this page, and as Google produces about 38,200 results for the exact phrase "militant Christianity", then we can categorically assert that the term militant is used in relation to Christianity, and that the phrase "militant Christianity" has appeared on the internet about 38,200 times. This information may be verified by reading the discussion of this page, and by entering the exact term "militant Christianity" into the Google search engine. To give one example from 38,200: the term was used by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, in an article in The News Of The World dated 14 February 2010 ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Larry Trask does not actually say that the word "militant" is never used in relation to Christianity. He says it is not applied to particular kinds of activities which Christians might engage in - door to door evangelism, for example. As it stands the summary of Trask is misleading and I will amend it accordingly. --] (]) 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Coat rack == |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] for Misplaced Pages's definition of a coatrack article. From the first time I have seen this article (many months ago) the article has had this problem. I have given it some time to improve, but that has not happened. At the moment, almost three quarters of the pure text in the body are not about "militant atheism" in general (whatever that is; apparently there is no proper definition, and it is just atheism that is "militant", i.e. strong) but about suppression of religion that occurred in the Soviet Union. The article appears designed to attract general readers and present them with a picture of atheists as evil. |
|
|
|
|
|
The little general content is totally redundant with existing articles such as ], ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since I don't believe an article with this kind of title, which has simply been made up from two constituents in the same way as ], ], ] or ], has a place in an encyclopedia in the first place, I am not going to fix the coatrack problem by extending the current article. On the other hand, retitling it to reflect its real contents also makes no sense because ] already exists. ] ] 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'll try some editing to make it about use of the term, as noted above there is already discussions about persecution of christians in Soviet union etc. ] (]) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Soviet Bloc == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need for the detail about the soviet bloc, it is about the ] which already exists. ] (]) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello IRWolfie, surely we do not need to copy all of the information present in that article here. However, the definition of militant atheism, which the source states "as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opoum and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control of eliminate religion." As such, we must provide a ''summary'' of some of these issues in this article, not only for the Soviet Bloc, but for others who espoused this philosophy. This is similar to the article on ], which contains sections regarding similar issues pertaining to that religion. I agree with you that the information in the ] section needs to be incorporated in the article. For example, it might be helpful to start a section on militant atheism in the French Revolution. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Much of information in this section appears to be taken from the cited sources without properly indicating that it has been quoted directly from those sources. This needs fixing. --] (]) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== VERY ONE SIDED == |
|
|
|
|
|
wikipedia is neutral. let's keep it that way. the inclusion of communism in this article is absolutely ridiculous. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Use of article as coatrack == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am unhappy about the way this article is going, as edited recently by ]. It is (again) being used as a ] on which to hang one editor's opinion of the evils of the Soviet Union, using the term "militant atheism" as an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism. The label "militant atheism" is being applied by the editor, rather than taken from the sources. This is not about militant atheism, it is about the Soviet Union. This material does not belong in this article. I think it's time for a radical pruning, to reduce the article to material that actually discusses the subject. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 07:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello Snalwibma, I would request that you please ]. There are plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages concerning ], ], ], ], ], and ]. I have never once stated that "militant atheism is an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism" as you have asserted. This article discusses one form of atheism and is contrasted from other movements of atheism, such as ] or ], for example. As for the references, you can gladly check them. Each one of them makes reference to the topic of militant atheism. I understood that this was important so not to violate ]. In fact, I inserted the original quotes in all the references I added to demonstrate my adherence to the original language of the sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for the reply, Anupam. To clarify - "militant atheism is an excuse to discuss all the bad things allegedly done in the name of atheism" is my own opinion of what seems to be happening in the article, not something I am suggesting you said. But on the main point - I am registering a concern, and I'd be interested to see what others think. I am concerned because this article was hijacked a couple of years ago and turned into a rabid "atheism is bad" rant, based on one editor's opinion that x, y, and z were clearly "militant atheists" (see talk page archives). The article strayed further and further from the topic, and became a rant about the evils of the Soviet Union. I would be worried if it went down that road again, and I fear that your edits are heading that way. I've no time just now to check all your references, but it is important that each one of them is clearly about "militant atheism", using something very close to that actual phrase, and that it is not your interpretation of what they say that places them within the "militant atheism" field. What do others think? <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you for your clarification User:Snalwibma. Yes, the references in place are clearly about "militant atheism", using that actual phrase. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I see no reason why a section on religious persecution under the soviets. there are already articles which discusses these things. It appears that what could be attributed to marxist doctrine is instead being attributed to militant atheism. (where this article has defined militant atheism to be the belief that religion can be demonstrated to be false and is harmful). ] (]) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Hello User:IRWolfie-, ur opinions on what or what should not be attributed do not matter; rather, our job here on Misplaced Pages is to simply transmit information based on reliable sources per ]. Nevertheless, one of the used in the article even states that "one fundamental element of that system was its propogation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism." In other words, militant atheism was one fundamental element of Marxism-Leninism, and therefore can be discussed on its own merit. The sources used in the article attribute the phenomenon to "militant atheism." Furthermore, the definition of militant atheism in the introduction of the article also makes reference to the "desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief." I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: as you have just pointed out, it was Marxist doctrine and dogma that led to the attempts to wipe out religion. I also find it odd that all the related articles on the soviets linked do not mention militant atheism. ] (]) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As I mentioned above, citing the appropriate reference, one tenant of Marxism-Leninism was militant atheism. However, Marxism-Leninism contains other ideologies as well. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the improvement of the article on militant atheism. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Soviet marxist-leninism's particular form of atheism was "scientific atheism", or at least that's what they called it. "Militant atheism" was not a form of atheism, but a label for the activities of groups like the League of Militant Atheists. --] (]) 20:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Section appears to have no relevance to militant atheism. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I performed this edit to remove what appears to be a synthesis to link this material to militant atheism when there is no explicit link. ] (]) 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello User:IRWolfie-, I can understand why you removed much of the material in that section and will accept your removal at this time. However, the information in those sources did discuss science under militant atheism; nevertheless I can understand that we do not want to violate ]. I did however, restore a sentence that made explicit reference to . I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::It appears the dispute is regarding addition of content regarding the Big Bang and genetics. The content was removed per WP:SYNTH. This is an incorrect application of the policy. WP:SYNTH applies to ''conclusions'' derived from sources. That atheists opposed the Big Bang is a fact and not synth. Whether the Big Bang and genetics are appropriate content for this article is determined by direct relevancy, or in cases where the reader benefits from background info, indirect relevancy. Whether or not content is relevant to an article is determined by consensus. I believe the Big Bang and genetics provide valuable background info and should be re-added. ] (]) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The only defense pro-atheist editors have for showing a position they defend and try and deny as having preached hate and intolerance and is more guilty of mass murder and human rights violations than the religions they scorn. IS that the exact phrase "militant atheist" is not used to describe it. As if their hate is somehow masked by such a technicality. So much for honorable people standing up to bigotry and hate? All bigotry and hate. However this is not lost on their remaining victims. As a matter of fact this is being addressed and worked on. And we have plenty of time for this. Here is an article , about Museums built to promote the anti-religious bigotry of ]. I would hope someone here would pursue contacting it's author Crispin Paine as from his article it appears there should be at least a section of this article dedicated to the whole phenomenon of Militant Atheists converted places of worship into museums. Bigotry is bigotry saying that people did not do evil calling themselves atheists and then calling the whole thing a myth is sociopathic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Promoting hatred is promoting hatred. But then whats obvious has been lost here. Intolerance states one is not allowed to disagree and then goes about censoring and sullying those whom criticize its perspective. Because the true believers the zealots the militants will not allow or tolerate any opposing opinions, here's an example look at the posters comments to this blog and see that there are atheists professing hatred OUTRIGHT. This is whats happening on this article. And other "tolerant" atheists are enablers by opposing positions critical of them. Only their opposition should be criticized whatever criticism that is going to be allowed will be whitewashed and sanitized of any ugly truths that people here should not have to suffer. But then for this whole scam to continue pro-atheist here have to keep translating безбожников as Godless when it is most commonly translated as atheist. . Not right or wrong, just technicality. Something to also note. As this source very clearly points out - ], allot of killing and mass murder has been done in the name of reason and scientific progress (remember philosophy is about explaining things without using theism but rather instead reason as cause) and was and is done completely free and clear of any religious or theist belief. No one is addressing this here either. Atheist don't have to believe in anything that includes rules as it is obvious that its completely good and honest to used giant wide generalization and blame everything bad on religion but not OK to get the same kind of treatment in return. However militant atheist is not only a very specific term it is also the official title taken about the group in Russia that did the mass murder, and whole sale destruction. Thats not ignorance or bias that's historical fact. ] (]) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not sure what this rant has to do with the issue at hand; the relevancy of the Big Bang to a wiki article on militant atheism. ] (]) |
|
|
:::snore. ] (]) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you for your comments. In light of User:Lionelt's comments, I would support the re-inclusion of the material into the article as the mentioning of Genetics and Cosmology were examples of how the Soviet Union attempted to "establish an ideologically acceptable view of science" (). The sources do make reference to the Soviet Union and employ the term "communist atheistic" among other similar ones. In regards to User:LoveMonkey's comments, I've the journal article as a reference in the article body. I look forward to hearing all of your comments soon. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Off-topic discussion in violation of ], and dangerously close to ]}} |
|
|
:::You know this might be an ideal and more respectful interaction if some editors would acknowledge that it is the very definition of ] illness (which is a very serious psychological disorder) to act without ], to treat people whom speak out against mass murder as ranters. To marginalize mass murder and human rights violations while claiming that their behavior is justified because people whom they disagree with and spew hate about might have done similar things. However as was clearly stated before on this article talkpage (though years ago). There is absolutely no record ever in the history of mankind showing where people of religion rounded up and slaughtered atheists. As egotistical as they (atheist)are religious people would simply just not hear the end of it. And it is quite obvious that the ] is a bogus ]. 9 million people, REALLY. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::They have a point or two on discrimination though, and there I find with them (atheists) common ground and agree that should stop, they (atheist) deserve to have their position and have that position respected (well maybe if they behaved in a respectful way). But thats hardly justified what has been done in the name of their position (millions of deaths to religious peoples {http://www.sras.org/library_religion_russia} and executions like ]). They appear to have very thin skin but love to be hateful and spew hate and disrespect (i.e. blasphemy). Good to see that concerns about tyranny being established in the name of say a concept like ] or militant atheism are not valid concerns, no that's just people ranting. Marginalize people and they will marginalize you. They had their way in the East and all anybody got out of it was life was ] and therefore meaningless (we can't possibly make anything such thing as "meaning" let alone "to our lives" that's just absurd) and that there was no justification for people to not see morality as a set of impediments and that corruption was the way for the ] to go. Mass corruption is what you get. ] (]) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Nor do they acknowledge this point which we keep posting over and over again..As there indeed are plenty of socialist religious persons. |
|
|
:::"-- Russian emigres who established our Church fled not socialism but godlessness, militant atheism and persecution. The people who run Venezuela today are not the Soviet state. President Chavez may be a socialist, yes. But he is not an atheist. Moreover, he openly calls himself a believer, does not persecute the Church and does not propagandize atheism. Venezuela today finds itself in a profound social crisis, and something must be done, so I lean towards sympathizing with him. It is not the Church’s lot to involve itself in politics or decide which is better, socialism or capitalism. The Savior commanded us to tend to our neighbor, to help the poor and orphaned. Christianity is not alien to the concept of social justice—unless it is harnessed to godlessness. At the same time, many of our parishioners have a justifiable mistrust of socialists, which is characteristic for ROCOR. Orthodox Christians in Latin America are very politicized, and that’s the way it always was. For instance, during Allende’s time, they fled Chile en masse." ] (]) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:LoveMonkey - I respect your opinions, but I'm not sure this is the right place to express them (]),and I fail to see how this expression of them is going to help improve the article on militant atheism. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 14:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::WP:OWN is a policy vio you and your tag team should stop it. I can post sources and positions valid to the subject. Stop trying to Wiki lawyer people into being frustrating when posting sources and information. That is policy abuse. Get an administrator and I will get one and then we can see if they will find it OK for you to attempt to marginalize my points and sources under the idea of SOAPBOX. WP:SOAP makes no such statement and I am in no way in violation of it's points. ] (]) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::What on earth are you talking about? Please assume good faith, and stop the personal attacks and unwarranted accusations (What tag team? What do you mean by pointing to ]? Where is the policy abuse? What wikilawyering?). Stop using this talk page a soapbox on subjects that are at best tangentially relevant to the article. I will go quickly to ] if you can't behave in a reasonable manner. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 14:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Anyone can access the archive and see our previous interactions here. ] (]) 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::LoveMonkey, your comments above accusing atheist editors of being bigots and hatemongers are ''grossly'' out of line, beyond simply being a violation of ]. Your unsolicited attack of Snalwibma for pointing this out is simply baffling. If this continues, it ''will'' result in a report being filed, and that will very likely reflect poorly on you. Please stop. Concentrate on article improvement, via sources. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 16:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Provided a link or source to that comment earlier in discussion. |
|
|
::Link title ''You might be a Militant Atheist if" which explicitly says from atheist poster. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''"I advocate a true and wholesome HATE towards any religious ideology,''' and thus call for the absolute destruction of any entity. I am done with diplomatic solutions!!!! I do not suggest violence towards the religious; though I must say I would not condemn it . ." |
|
|
|
|
|
::So people are too believe that militant factions of whatever ideology do not harbor hate? Please provide a source for your comments. I really feel that there is some real cold blooded blindness in how pro-atheists are allowed to behave on this article. How they are being allowed to wholesale delete information not because it is invalid but because they have admins here whom are sympathetic to their POV and their POV pushing. So Jess how is it that sourcing and providing an example from an atheist website is ]. Where does the policy say that? |
|
|
|
|
|
::As the title of the link contains the title of this article. How is it that I have not included it in the article and yet your here making a case that I am in violation of Wikipolicy? No, this is just more dodging and projecting and avoiding what people can see and hear for themselves about the subject of this article. How is it opinion if I provide examples of the exact conduct in questions? As if wikipolicy will make that atheist's sentiments go away. As I at no point nor any source I've given has stated that all atheists are militant atheists. ] (]) 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Stop. If you make another comment which does not concern article improvement, or which actively disparages other editors on this page, I will take this to ANI. Your comments above are inappropriate. Period. We don't need to discuss it any further. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please take it to my talk page. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening sentence failed verification == |
|
|
The opening sentence states: |
|
|
{{cquote|Militant atheism, also referred to as atheist fundamentalism, is a term which refers to the ideology of hostility towards religion.}} |
|
|
I checked the source and what it actually says is: |
|
|
{{cquote|militant atheism, '''as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks''', treats religion as the dangerous opoum and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control of eliminate religion}} |
|
|
The definition in the source is only about Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and not about the term in general. The article includes people such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who have nothing to do with Bolshevism as far as I know. ] (]) 22:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Actually, now that I check the source again, it says that militant atheism only lasted 30 years fading away by 1978. I can't help but wonder if the article lacks focus and is a mish-mash of ]. ] (]) 22:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello! Did you read the sentence following the first one? Many articles in Misplaced Pages don't include sources in the introductory sentence but I have added the original source and original quote just in case. Also, with regards to your second sentence, remember that when the second source is talking about the thirty years, it is in reference to "militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks," not militant atheism in general, which you stated above in your first comment. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am removing the references to "atheist fundamentalism" in the opening definition. The first source does not mention "militant atheism", and second is merely a quote from someone using both terms synonymously. If there is a source to the effect that these terms are commonly used synonymously, then bring it forward. Otherwise, this is WP: undue. --] (]) 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I see my edit has been reverted, reason given "seek consensus". I was of course being bold. This requires serious discussion since the cited sources do not in fact support the bit I removed. I would very much like to see it removed as WP: OR, but I do not wish to waste my time in multiple reverts. --] (]) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Quoted material not in quote marks == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article includes a huge amount of material which is taken directly - quoted - from cited sources without appearing in quote marks. I think this is dreadful writing, as well as borderline plagiarism. My attempts to clean this up have been reverted. Rather than set off an edit war, I ask editors to give their views of this practice of pretending that the article contains original writing when in fact it is cobbled together from paragraphs from cited sources but without quote marks. --] (]) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To emphasise, the Misplaced Pages manual of style makes it clear that quotes must be properly attributed in the text where appropriate, and must always be set apart from surrounding text with quote marks. See ], ]. --] (]) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Oh, and ]. --] (]) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Dear User:Dannyno, the material in question was not a direct quote but rather, was a précis. As such, it is not necessary to apply quotation marks around the material in question. The reason we have the original quotes in the references is because this is a contentious article and we want to ensure that the material within the article is properly ]. I hope this helps. Thanks for your constructive edits and your efforts to improve the article. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Much of this article is quoted directly. Can't remember now whether the original bit about Moldova was quoted or summarised. Either way, an intext attribution is required, as is clear from wikipedia policy and style guidelines as cited above. Attribution is required, even if the information is properly cited. Suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant guidance and policy. Much work is needed on this page before it is brought into line. --] (]) 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article. == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article begins: |
|
|
: '''Militant atheism''', also referred to as atheist fundamentalism, is a term which refers to ... |
|
|
If this article were titled "atheist fundamentalism", would it include all the material on State atheism? If no, then why is it being used as a synonym in the lede? If yes, then wouldn't arguments that this is a "well sourced article about a term" justify writing another entire article with the same exact content under that name? Just because sources can be found that a term is used does not mean that there should be an article on that term when the content is simply a repetition of other articles. ''Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article.'' This article is nothing but a coatrack for including every imaginable complaint about atheism by anyone who has ever used the term "militant atheism" in their criticism.--] (]) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Absolutely. Well put - that's exactly the problem. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I note my attempt to remove the reference to "atheist fundamentalism", on the grounds of ] as well as the fact that one of the citations was irrelevant, was reverted. --] (]) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:User:JimWae, once again, militant atheism is defined as the "ideology of hostility towards religion." The supporting academic journal defines term "atheist fundamentalism" as "hostility to religion." It is for this reason that the synonym has been given in the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That has to be ], shading into ] --] (]) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In no way are either of the policies being violated. The information in the introduction is supported by ]; both terms refer to the "hostility towards religion." Moreover, the second reference indicates their popular usage as synonyms, despite the fact that the author personally disagrees with it. I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Split article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{split|date=June 2011|reason=WP:COATRACK}}This article is 3 to 5 separate articles, though one cannot tell that from the lede. There is ] or ], ], ], and ]. The article is about a term, not a single concept. Just because the way Atheism has been applied by various states *might* have had the same term (militant atheism) applied to it does not mean that New Atheism is in the same tradition. The paintbrush is too broad and the ] has too many storeys. ] also applies.--] (]) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I do not think that this is a good idea. For one, many of the articles you proposed already exist. For example, there are articles on ] and ], ]. Not all atheism in Communist States, however, is necessarily ''militant'', a term which is well defined. Moreover, the introduction of this article distinguished between the militant atheism prevalent under Marxist–Leninism and its usage as a pejorative term towards members of the New Atheism movement. For this reason, the information is grouped under separate section headings. I would ask if you please remove the NPOV tag from the article and discuss the issue here. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] and ] are distinguishable concepts. We do not have a single article for ] and ]. There is no reason to lump the 2 articles together just because some people have sometimes used the same term for each. The content of this article should be moved to the pages that exist & this become a disambiguation page--] (]) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I disagree, the article on ] covers much more than is presented here. The only information on that topic presented here is how it relates to militant atheism. Articles on ], ], ], and ] do not cease to exist and neither should this article. Those terms have different uses throughout history but the general article is not simply deleted from Misplaced Pages. Moreover, all of the information presented in this article is well referenced by ]; removing this article for the reasons you suggest is addressed in ]. I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Everything in this article can be covered by 2 articles ] and ]. There is no reason to have the same material covered extensively in various articles, except to suggest cross-contamination because the same term has sometimes been attached to both. "Militant atheism" was not the name of the Soviet Policy (even if there have been later communist newspapers/pamphlets that translate to that). Militant atheism is just a nickname for the New Atheism - often meant pejoratively. There is nothing in the lede that mentions China or France. There is nothing in the lede, nor in the entire article, to distinguish New Atheism from Soviet state atheism. The first part of this article focuses primarily on state atheism. The second part, and ALL the criticism, is about New Atheism. As you say, "the article on ] covers much more than is presented here", then what is presented on that topic here will easily fit in that article.--] (]) 23:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Militant atheism does not equal state atheism as you have suggested; militant atheism can be the policy of atheist states however, as the references in the article suggest. For example, the ] and its militant atheist policies were abolished, despite the fact that the USSR remained an atheist state. Similarly, ] does not equal ] and ] does not equal ]. Furthermore, your claims are unsubstantiated by references. You suggest that "Militant atheism was not the name of the Soviet Policy '''even if''' there have been later communist '''newspapers/pamphlets that translate to that'''." This is where you breach ]. Misplaced Pages's job is to simply report what ] state, which has been done. If you read the introduction once again, you will find that it distinguishes between its usage as relevant to Marxism-Leninism and the "''more recent''" usage. There is more to ] than its relation to ] and this article does not describe that fully. In the same fashion, there is more to ] than is described in this article. I hope this helps. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 00:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*1. Militant atheism as a state policy is not the same concept as militant atheism as it is nicknamed regarding New Atheism. They are diff concepts with different traditions -- and thus different articles. ] says articles are not about terms but about concepts. Disambiguation pages are about terms. |
|
|
*2. IF there were a policy called Militant Atheism, then that MIGHT justify a separate article by that name - but would NOT justify the extensive treatment & criticism of New Atheism in such an article |
|
|
*3. Your arguments that there is more in the other articles further support splitting this article, they are not reasons for preserving this as an article.--] (]) 01:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, militant atheism refers to the "ideology of hostility towards religion" as the article states in the introduction. It is obvious that such an ideology can manifest itself in different ways. That is why there are different sections in this article that describes the application of such an ideology. If I were you, I would examine the structure of other articles and understand that one article can touch upon a subject while another article can expand upon it. This article on ] is analogous to other articles such as ] and ]. Finally, a policy called "militant atheism" has been established. Every single sentence in this article is buttressed by a scholarly reference which uses the term in reference to an ideology that was manifested in a particular way. It might help to read the quotes from the references in the article. The section on New Atheism, and its relation to Militant Atheism, is not a large one as you suggest but is only one part of the multiple sections on this article. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Split article''' because it creates an association between New Atheism and state atheism that does not exist, except in the minds of some militant critics of atheism. I also agree, currently, that content should be merged into the existing articles on ] and ], because neither usage of the term merits its own article at present. There is more material, however, that is relevant to the current criticisms of New Atheism. For instance the episode involving ] and his use of the term "Atheist fundamentalism." Still, I think all of that can be covered in ]. Cheers.] (]) 14:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Split article''' if that is the only way of stemming the tide of ] that leads to the article becoming a dumping ground for every "atheism is bad" opinion that can be mustered. I still think there is a core concept of "militant atheism" that is worth documenting, but maybe it's mainly a ] thing, and would be better treated under ] in general. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 15:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep and Oppose Split''' as the concept of "militant atheism" is fully referenced throughout this article. The term does have different uses and they are distinguished in this article. Militant atheism refers to the "ideology of hostility towards religion" as the article states in the introduction. It is obvious that such an ideology can manifest itself in different ways. That is why there are different sections in this article that describes the application of such an ideology. Individuals can describe themselves as "militant atheists" but never as "state atheists." As I mentioned numerous times, there are articles on ], ], ], ], ], and ]. These articles do not cease to exist because they offer some insight on an academic subject. Furthermore, they do not equate to the separate concepts of ] and ]. The same concept applies here: ] does not equal ] and this equation actually amounts to ]. Much of the content at the ] page is not relevant here as this term deals with modern scientists and their defense for atheism, all of which cannot be considered 'militant' unless it is 'hostile' as the definition suggests. Every sentence in this article is supported by an academic source about militant atheism and per ], this topic merits its own article. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:] is not a valid argument. Cheers.] (]) 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*::That guideline addresses unrelated subjects. Articles on fundamentalism, including ], ], and ] are all related and the comparison is relevant. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::You are incorrect. The guideline is about ''any'' argument that one article should exist because another does. Please read the entire guideline and do not generalize based on the examples you see initially. Cheers.] (]) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I stand by my post. The guideline you pointed to states that "The existence of ], ] from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Misplaced Pages category or similarity to other articles." As I mentioned above, every sentence here is supported by a reference if not many. The desire to delete this article per ] is not an acceptable one. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I have no desire to quibble more over this. My point was correct. You are saying that there are ''other reasons'' to keep it. Good for you, but you ''also'' invoked "otherstuff" which is not valid. Regarding your other argument you appear to be the only one who believes this isn't a work of synthesis, and that there is enough here to have an entire entry on either of the two different subjects. No one wants to censor anything. We just want to move the information to its proper places. Cheers.] (]) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep, Oppose split'''. The article is well documented, as is the use of the term in reliable sources. ] (]) 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support split, keep content''' There is no reason to have a separate article about every term, nor to include everything about every near synonym for a term in every article. The content of this article is dealt with extensively elsewhere. This article is primarily about 2 separate things: ] & ]. This article says nothing to distinguish them--They are treated as if they are the same thing, and ALL of the criticism is about New Atheism - nothing about State atheism. This is a content fork, resulting in an ]. Much of the material about State Atheism in USSR is also presented (repeated again, but also more fully) at ]. Having essentially the same material in 3 or 4 or 5 separate articles makes it difficult to keep all the articles current and well-edited, weakening each of those articles. This article need be only a disambiguation page to help people find the specific topic they seek. State Atheism is roughly 74% of this article (with Soviet atheism roughly 58% of the whole - leaving roughly 16% for other state atheism ). New Atheism, at roughly 26%, is given almost twice as much treatment as other state atheism. But the only link between State atheism & New Atheism is that the same term "militant atheism" has been stuck ( pejoratively) on a group of atheists who have no desire to follow in the tradition of Soviet atheism. This article is a coatrack used to display every criticism of atheism imaginable, making any response to criticisms appear to be a defense of Soviet-style state atheism. Militant atheism in New Atheism and Soviet militant atheism are two separate concepts - treating them as one makes the article read like mere propaganda --] (]) 19:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Such is your opinion, but given that every example of State Atheism has been accompanied by millions of examples of Militant atheism in action (intentional starvation, gulags, mass murder, and mass graves) I don't see how any reasonable person can argue that the two are really distinct. And militant atheism is both descriptive and neutral. "Atheist Brutality and Butchery" would be a title that would be less neutral, though certainly accurate. ] (]) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That's exactly the problem: Presuming that "New Atheism" will result in Soviet-style state atheism is the subtext of treating both in the same article. Your response indicates you think I am advocating that Soviet atheism was not militant atheism, which is a misreading of everything I wrote. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and articles must not violate NPOV--] (]) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No one is asking for predictions of the future, just an accurate description of the past. ] (]) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree with the comments by User:Frjohnwhiteford. User:Jim Wae has inaccurately assessed the article. If one looks at the criticism section, it is evident that most of the criticism is on the militant atheism of the USSR. An "]" and "]" are not the same thing. If an individual opines "hostility to religion," that makes him a militant atheist, not a state atheist. In a similar fashion, "]" is not equivalent to the term "]." Moreover, the evolution of the usage of the terminology is mentioned from the start of the article, in the introduction. Furthermore, all of the references in this article discuss militant atheism, not "state atheism." Conflating the two terms amounts to ]. This article is supported by ] and ] and merits its position here on Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If the distinction could be better made and the article preserved, a re-formatting of this article would be beneficial to both sides (e.g., dividing criticism of each definition or association into the section on each). This is not to say that the article amounts to a glorified disambiguation page, as it contains its own information on an expression and associated concepts which are widely used and relevant to several groups, and moreover, does so in an encyclopedic fashion, with extensive ] and clarity. The title can be traced to many of these sources as-is, and these are all ] and respectable sources. '''Keep; oppose split.''' ] (]) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here we go again. This discussion is descending into the sort of ]ery that the article itself is liable to suffer from as it attracts editors who see it as a place to dump their ] comments about "Atheist Brutality and Butchery" etc, defining "militant atheism" however it suits them (e.g. as "intentional starvation, gulags, mass murder, and mass graves" - WTF?), in an effort to convey "The Truth" about their bogeymen. If that is (once again) to be the fate of the article, it should be killed off and its contents put into more suitable places. I commend Anupam for his/her valiant efforts to keep everything grounded in well-sourced references to a clearly defined concept of "militant atheism", but once the vultures arrive to use it as an excuse to ] material from all over the place for their own anti-atheist anti-soviet ends (and those vultures are starting to circle) the whole thing will end up as a meaningless and bloody mess. The trouble is that in the end it's only a phrase, and it has been used to mean so many different things, that there is no core concept on which to base an article, and Misplaced Pages is ] of words or phrases. With some regret, I conclude that the article should be disposed of. <small><b>]</b> ( ] - ] )</small> 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Dear User:Snalwibma, thank you for your kind commendation. Indeed, I, like yourself also do not support individuals using this article for their own ends or to disseminate propaganda against atheists, most of whom abhor militant atheist ideology. I, like you, also recognize that this like many other Misplaced Pages articles, may attract that attention. However, as you stated, I have made "valiant efforts to keep everything grounded in well-sourced references to a clearly defined concept of 'militant atheism'." This is the crux of the issue. The article is ] because each sentence in it is referenced by one, if not several ]. The fact that this is a contentious topic does not warrant its deletion. Rather, it calls for individuals who wish to adhere to ] and ] to watch the article and ensure that additions to it are referenced by reliable sources that discuss the topic of militant atheism. I hope you will understand my point! :) With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
Done —