Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 19: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:59, 25 January 2017 editXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 11:17, 25 January 2017 edit undoLaurel Lodged (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,338 edits Alternative categories or rename proposalsNext edit →
Line 338: Line 338:
::::::::I agree with Jobas1990 that the Froese source "clearly notes" that the '''"Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union"''' and work toward a secularized society, just as they have continued to do in much of the Western world until present day, while the '''<u>"The Communist Party"</u> destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders..."''' - or, in short, persecuted. So a category named "Religious persecution by a communist party" does have at least one source to support it. The Froese source does <u>not</u> support the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" creation, however. The Froese source mentions "persecution/persecuted" exactly six times, and every time attributes it to Soviets / Communists - not atheists or atheism. What the '''"totalitarian state"''' did to persecute religion with the hopes to create an atheistic society was indeed beyond normal secular government, and this Froese article correctly places blame (unlike our misleading category under discussion). ::::::::I agree with Jobas1990 that the Froese source "clearly notes" that the '''"Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union"''' and work toward a secularized society, just as they have continued to do in much of the Western world until present day, while the '''<u>"The Communist Party"</u> destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders..."''' - or, in short, persecuted. So a category named "Religious persecution by a communist party" does have at least one source to support it. The Froese source does <u>not</u> support the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" creation, however. The Froese source mentions "persecution/persecuted" exactly six times, and every time attributes it to Soviets / Communists - not atheists or atheism. What the '''"totalitarian state"''' did to persecute religion with the hopes to create an atheistic society was indeed beyond normal secular government, and this Froese article correctly places blame (unlike our misleading category under discussion).
::::::::As for calling "racism" a harmless abstraction, or equating atheism with Islam and Christianity, those opinions require a whole separate discussion and are wholly unrelated to the matter at hand. ] (]) 10:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) ::::::::As for calling "racism" a harmless abstraction, or equating atheism with Islam and Christianity, those opinions require a whole separate discussion and are wholly unrelated to the matter at hand. ] (]) 10:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::So the 70-year war waged by atheists and the communists who destroyed churches & mosques were two different groups? Is this what you would have us believe? ] (]) 11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


==== Category:GKIDS animated films ==== ==== Category:GKIDS animated films ====

Revision as of 11:17, 25 January 2017

< January 18 January 20 >

January 19

Category:Kangta

Nominator's rationale: Simply not enough content to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON as Category:Kangta albums is enough to hold all related articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, filled - this was one of my cat red link attacks, not sure what happened as I'm normally pretty sensitive to overcategorisation and usually try to fill out these kinds of categories. Which I've now done a bit, although I suspect that part of the problem is that being perhaps the Korean equivalent of Gary Barlow not all the articles that should be there actually exist yet. Anyway, it should be full enough now to stand on its own merits.Le Deluge (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Kangta is a notable personality and my opinion is that Category:Kangta albums can be a sub-category of this one in order to incorporate other articles relating to them. Eliko007 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by atheists

Nominator's rationale: The category has been emptied by User:Xenophrenic who indicated would be willing share a list of the content that was removed from the category. As nominator I do not have an opinion about the pros or cons of deletion of the category yet, because I don't exactly remember what was in the category to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Co-nominator's rationale: The category fails WP:OCEGRS which states: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. For example, Category:LGBT murderers. Such categories attempt to misleadingly convey a causative correlation. Attempts to create a head article have been made before, usually resulting in this: Historical persecution by atheism or Historical persecution by atheists (see deletion discussion 1 and deletion discussion 2), and it is hard not to view the creation of this problematic category as an end-run around past community consensus. In addition, the category fails WP:CATDEF, which states: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. As will be seen in the ensuing discussions below, creating a category to imply religious persecution is an attribute of atheism is anything but uncontroversial. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

1922 confiscation of Russian Orthodox Church property
233 Spanish Martyrs
498 Spanish Martyrs
522 Spanish Martyrs
Acerrimo Moerore
Ad Apostolorum principis
Agustín Caloca Cortés
Anacleto González Flores
Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union
Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War
Cambodian genocide
Category:Anti-clericalism
Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union
Category:Cristero War
Category:Demolished churches in the Soviet Union
Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic
Chronicle of the Catholic Church in Lithuania
Cristero War
Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution
Dominic Tang
Eastern Catholic victims of Soviet persecutions
Enver Hoxha
Eugene Bossilkov
Islam in Tajikistan
Islam in the Soviet Union
Jaime Hilario Barbal
Jenaro Sánchez Delgadillo
Josef Beran
José Sánchez del Río
League of Militant Atheists
Marguerite Rutan
Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War
Martyrs of Turon
Martyrs of Daimiel
Marxist–Leninist atheism
Mateo Correa Magallanes
Meminisse iuvat
Miguel Pro
Operation North
Persecution of Buddhists
Persecution of Christians
Persecution of Christians in Mexico
Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc
Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union
Persecutions of the Catholic Church and Pius XII
Pietro Leoni
Polish anti-religious campaign
Red Shirts (Mexico)
Red Terror (Spain)
Refractory clergy
Religious persecution in Communist Romania
Saints of the Cristero War
Severian Baranyk
Soviet anti-religious legislation
State Secretary for Church Affairs
Temple of Reason
Three Martyrs of Chimbote
Tomás Garrido Canabal
USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–87)
USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–64)
USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–41)
USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–28)
Walter Ciszek
Zynoviy Kovalyk

The problematic category was also inserted into these articles by editors other than Jobas: Darío Acosta Zurita, Islam in Albania (1945-1991), Mercè Prat i Prat, Pierre-Adrien Toulorge, Reign of Terror.
This misnamed category misleadingly implies that atheism (absence of belief in deities) is the source of persecution, which is nonsensical. There are a number of categories given for "Persecution by XXX", where XXX = a particular religion, and certain tenets of that religion (re: blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) might be a source of persecution. But atheism isn't a religion (a common misconception), nor does it mandate any persecuting action like some religions might (stoning, lashes, exile, death, etc.). There is a reason why we don't have a Persecution by atheists article to back up this category. Looking at the articles tagged with this category, it is apparent that persecution of religions by some communist governments is being mis-labeled as "Persecution by atheists", as if atheism was the source of the persecution. The communist dictatorships were the source of the persecution, and they were striving for an atheistic, non-religious government. The same confusion was applied to articles about anti-clericalist governments; the source of the persecution was the anti-religious government, not "atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well sound you forgot that you directly pinging User:Knowledgebattle, who is known POVs.--Jobas (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree that this was an inappropriate action, but you should discuss this with User:Xenophrenic directly, preferably on their user talk page. If that doesn't help, you could ask an administrator to have a further look. (I'm not an administrator). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Marcocapelle, you strongly agree which was inappropriate? Jobas' insertion here of personal attacks on a fellow editor in violation of WP:NPA, or my justified removal of those personal attacks per WP:TPO (and as explained in detail on his user Talk page)? (And I fully agree that this isn't the right place for any of this discussion, but this is where you resumed it.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The Historical persecution by atheism (see deletion discussion was from 10 years ago (in 2007), Well it's wikilawyering. At the time of the 2007 decision, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Misplaced Pages:Notability).--Jobas (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What are you goin on about? This discussion is about a category nominated for deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jobas! Would you mind refraining from making personal attacks? Let's keep this discussion focused on the category under review, and if you'd like to express your concerns about perceived behavioral problems of editors, please do so at WP:ANI. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Jobas, could you please give a policy-based reason for your oppose? Or alternatively, provide reliable sources which clearly convey "Persecution by atheists"? Also, I see no discussions where consensus to keep the problematic category was developed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Having asked twice already, and with no response forthcoming, I'll take that as an indication that you have no support for the problematic category you created. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Geoffrey Blainey: "Most atheists rejected, as did many modern Christians, the idea of a God who constantly intervened in daily affairs. Another effect of Christianity, they argued, was the promotion of war and violence. It tends to be forgotten, however, that the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity. Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages". (source: A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), according to the same source Many priests were killed and imprisoned. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into hospitals. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.
Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism" conducted by Communists. Christopher Marsh, a professor at the Baylor University writes that "Tracing the social nature of religion from Schleiermacher and Feurbach to Marx, Engles, and Lenin, I attempt to explain how the idea of religion as a social product evolved to the point of policies aimed at the forced conversion of believers to atheism. After all, Marx himself never advocated using force to stop people from believing in religion, but in the end this is precisely what regimes did in his name."
So there been reliable sources cited that source of the persecution in some countries was the anti-religious and atheist government.--Jobas (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The definition of atheism may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you created the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.
Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543. Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316).
Your Marsh quote (if you read all of it) affirms what I have been saying, that it was the political regime, not "atheists", which did the persecution. From that same source, you'll see that Marsh explains it was the Bolsheviks who did the persecuting, not "atheists", although I'm sure many of the Bolsheviks were also atheists. I'm also sure many had mustaches, but that also was not the source of the persecution. Do you have any reliable sources which actually state that there was "Persecution by atheists"? We will need those sources if we are to maintain this category. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Religious believers in the Soviet Union were not persecuted by the abstract Platonic ideal of atheism in general, but they were persecuted by certain specific atheists in accordance with one particular specific manifestation of atheist ideology.
Are you referring to the ethologist, evolutionary biologist and atheist apologist Richard Dawkins who spends most of his time disparaging and critic of religions and religious people, and by the way he in not a historian (according to his Misplaced Pages article)? as far i remember Dawkins suggests that phrases such as "Catholic child" and "Muslim child" should be considered as socially absurd, and he is a prominent critic of religion that has stated his opposition to religion as two fold: religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence. So please bring sources of historians.--Jobas (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologist? No, I was referring to this Richard Dawkins. (And I don't understand what it is you wish to have sourced to a "historian"; clarify please?) Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Surely I was referring to this Richard Dawkins, but unfortunately he is not a "historian", therefore his personal opinion is not objective here.--Jobas (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
He is a respected academic (and a colleague of your McGrath, in fact), so he is a reliable source. Why do say he needs to be a historian? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
So far you have provided non except Dawkins who is not a reliable source on the issue.
The Pew Research Center which shows that after the fall of communism religious identification increased because of atheist repression of religion during the Soviet rule. This is another line of evidence from this reliable source.
"For centuries, Orthodox Christianity was the dominant religion in Russia. This began to change in the early 20th century, following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the imposition of state-sponsored atheism as part of communist ideology. During the Soviet period, many priests were imprisoned, many churches were converted to other uses or fell into disrepair, and people who publicly professed religious beliefs were denied prestigious jobs and admission to universities. While it is likely that some share of the population continued, in private, to identify with the Orthodox Church and other religious groups, it is impossible to measure the extent to which these attachments survived underground during the Soviet period and to what extent they faded away. Similarly, it is difficult to disentangle the extent to which the upsurge in Orthodox affiliation found in the surveys represents an expression of long-held faith or a genuinely new wave of religious affiliation. It may be that after the fall of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, Russians felt freer to express the religious identities they had quietly maintained during the Soviet era.3 However, given that the share of Russians identifying with a religion rose almost as much between 1998 and 2008 as it did from 1991 to 1998, the data suggest that the change is not solely an immediate aftereffect of the collapse of the Soviet system." .--Jobas (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
...religious identification increased because of atheist repression of religion during the Soviet rule - Jobas
Huh? Your Pew source does not say that. Pew wouldn't be so careless as to use a nonsensical phrase like "atheist repression of religion". Atheism is not anti-religion. In fact, there are many very religious atheists. Please read it again more carefully. Your source attributes the "communist ideology", as do many source. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and yes I've cited many reliable sources already (keep reading; they are in English). And your declaration that "Dawkins who is not a reliable source" doesn't hold water here. You are welcome to raise your concern at the Reliable Source Noticeboard if you'd like. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Gee, you have cited many reliable sources!, well so far you have provided non except Dawkins who is not a reliable source on the issue.--Jobas (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? Dawkins is a reliable source, of course, until I hear otherwise from WP:RSN. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, I would appreciate if you could cease making any personal attacks about my Arabian heritage, especially with your sarcastic "English please" posts. It is highly inappropriate and in-conducive to the respectful academic atmosphere of collaboration that we seek to foster on Misplaced Pages. Strike one--you've canvassed users with your POV here; strike two--you're displaying racism. Kindly accept this warning before you strike out to ANI.--Jobas (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
again please source your comment that persecution isn't a component of atheism.--Jobas (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you quote me exactly where I made that comment? (Hint: I never made that comment.) Ramos has tried to assert that persecution is a component of atheism, but hasn't yet provided reliable sourcing for such an absurd statement. It's right up there with "Fruit Loops is a component of atheism"; nonsensical, so there isn't likely to be a lot of sources stating it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, User:Laurel Lodged. It actually is not, according to reliable sources, a legitimate member of "Religious persecution", which is the very reason why it was nominated for deletion. But if you have reliable sources which say otherwise, it would be great if you could produce them for us to review. Otherwise, your comment doesn't advance the discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: What are the attributes of the other members of Category:Religious persecution tree that make them worthy members of that tree which are not shared by the nominated category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The other "Persecuted by XXX" subcategories of "Religious persecution" (there are 4 - Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims) have the attribute of being religions. As religions, they also have tenets (rules, dogma, commandments) upon which individuals or groups may act to commit persecutions (which may range from mere discrimination to capital punishment). Atheism, on the other hand, is not a religion or ideology or even a cohesive group, and has no such tenets. Atheism is the absence of belief in supernatural deities. One cannot persecute others "in the name of atheism"; it's nonsensical. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: My question related to the Category:Religious persecution tree, not to a non existent Category:Persecution by religious groups tree. The former has persecution visited by people of one religion (or none) on a group not affiliated to that religion (or non religion). So whether it's "by" or "of", the common thread is persecution. The point of this discussion is whether or not the bit in parentheses above (i.e. "none" and "or non religion") ought to be in scope for the grandparent tree. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then the nominated category ought to stay. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, I never referred to a nonexistent category tree. And also, "atheist/atheism" is neither a religion or non-religion. With those clarified, let's continue: I believe you misunderstand the point of this discussion. We are not discussing whether ("none" and "or non religion") is a component of the parent tree. It is, and we have no disagreement on that. We are discussing the malformed, misnamed Category:Persecution by atheists, which by its very wording misleads our readers to think atheism is the source, cause or impetus behind the persecution - which reliable sources (and common sense) say is not the case. If the category was instead named "Persecution by anti-religious groups" (which "atheists" certainly is not - there are many quite religious atheists), there would be no problem here. So to answer your question, should "non-religion" be a component of the Religious persecution tree? Probably (see the Bolsheviks campaigns against religions, for instance), but that isn't what we're discussing here. Does that alleviate some of the confusion? Regards Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It is true to say that Atheism is not axiomatically anti-religion. I'm sure many atheists never give religion a second thought, let alone work up a sweat about being positively anti-religious. But I'm not sure if the same can be said the other way around. That is, is anti-religionism the same as atheism? Muslims could hardly be described as anti-religious. Neither could Jews, Christians or even pagans. Each espouses religiosity. So if there is persecution being perpetrated by anti-religious elements, is is possible to say that such elements are not atheistic? Are there any anti-religious elements out there that are not also atheistic? Put another way, is it really tenable to say that Bosheviks sought the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church because they were Bolsheviks, not because they were atheists? Is such a schizophrenic division between Bolshevism and atheism possible? How many religious Bolsheviks were there? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
So if there is persecution being perpetrated by anti-religious elements, is is possible to say that such elements are not atheistic?
If there is persecution being perpetrated by an anti-religious element, our category should read: Religious persecution by , where that 'element' is the source of the anti-religion. "Atheism" is not anti-religion. It is simply an absence of belief in deities. So what is the actual impetus behind the anti-religion? To use the Soviet example, reliable sources say those in power (the Bolsheviks) saw religion (primarily the Orthodox Church) as a rival for control and influence over the populace, and it therefore had to be suppressed or removed. "Is it possible to say the Bolsheviks are not atheistic", you ask? It isn't an issue; our category under discussion isn't "Persecution by a totalitarian government, which also happens to be atheistic".
Are there any anti-religious elements out there that are not also atheistic?
You mean one god-believing religion in conflict with another god-believing religion? Of course. That was a rhetorical question, right?
is it really tenable to say that Bosheviks sought the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church because they were Bolsheviks, not because they were atheists?
Bolsheviks sought the destruction of the Russion Orthodox Church because they were a rival power (quite formidable, in fact) in the control and influence of the populace; not because they were atheists (a lack of belief does not equate to hostility toward religions or deity-believers). Please let me know if there is any remaining confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This category is certainly worth keeping because numerous reliable sources are clearly available on the topic of atheists persecuting people for numerous reasons including discrimination against people's worldviews and belief systems precisely because others were not atheists. USSR, Cambodia, China, and numerous other countries engaged in variant kinds of persecutions of religious people of all stripes. Following User:Jobas, excellent resources like "STORMING THE HEAVENS: THE SOVIET LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS" by Daniel Peris (Cornell University Press) are easily accessible which detail various levels of persecution done by some atheists in the USSR, for example. The suggestion that one switch "persecution by atheists" to "persecution by communists" would obscure the issues because not all atheists have been communists. For example, Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution is a case before communism even existed. Also, the charge of atheism being a component of persecution makes sense give that communism is perfectly compatible with Islam, Christianity, and other belief systems. In other words, Muslim communists, Christian communists, etc of course do exist. The original intent of the category seems to have been that atheists be highlighted because people in the USSR, China, Cabodia, etc could have had communist societies with religious diversity. And yet the focal point for many of these persecutions went beyond political view points into personal, religious or ultimate worldviews. It went beyond politics and economics. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
...numerous reliable sources are clearly available on the topic of atheists persecuting people for numerous reasons...
It would be great if you could please produce them here for us to review. As it stands now, all we have are sources of religious persecution by communist governments and dictators as they tried to eradicate religion and implement an atheistic regime. Please be careful not to confuse the very real religious persecution by political forces in their attempt to eradicate religious influence, with "persecution by atheists", which is not what occurred. I happen to own Storming the Heavens. From the very first page: When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, they promised to sweep away all that was old in Russian society and to create an entirely new civilization. One of the most dramatic points on this agenda foresaw the metamorphosis of Holy Russia into an atheistic Soviet Russia. While the Bolsheviks ultimately attacked all religions and denominations with devastating effect, their main thrust was directed at the Russian Orthodox Church, which was still a vital force in Russian culture. As you can see, the Bolsheviks, a revolutionary political government faction, persecuted the religious and is the source of that persecution. But your confusion is understandable, as their eradication of religion would result in an atheistic society, but "atheists" is not the source of the persecution. I'm looking forward to the numerous sources you mentioned. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, even what you quoted from "STORMING THE HEAVENS" proves my point that the Bolsheviks went beyond politics into persecuting religious organizations which makes no sense since Communism and the Orthodox Church were not intrinsically opposed. Religion and communism are certainly compatible so the issue is not based on politics. It goes beyond that into worldviews and personal convictions (beyond communism or capitalism or any other political or economic configuration). Furthermore, in the intro of "STORMING THE HEAVENS" it does note that atheism was an active part of a social program so one cannot say that atheism was not involved Soviet activity "Created in 1925, the League of the Militant Godless was the nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism. By all outward appearances, the League seemed to succeed in its mission. In 1932, seven years after its creation, the League claimed 5.5 million members, 2 million more than the Communist Party itself. The League's Central Council in Moscow published its own newspaper, Bezbozhnik (The Godless), several other Russian-language journals, and propaganda materials in many other languages of the Soviet Union. Antireligious pamphlets and posters were printed in large numbers. The League's far-flung network of cells and councils sponsored lectures, organized demonstrations, and actively propagandized against religious observance. Leading Bolshevik figures gave speeches at the League's national congress in 1929, at which the League officially became "Militant." The Communist Party, the Komsomol, the trade unions, the Red Army, and Soviet schools all conducted antireligious propaganda, but the League was the organizational centerpiece of this effort to bring atheism to the masses.". Others here seem to have provided other examples of reliable sources on the matter already too.
I will admit that the concept of persecution by Christians, Muslims, and etc are difficult to show since even the concept of religious violence seems to never be a primary reason, but a side justification for normal secular ends or needs. There are of course works which document the recent invention of the concept of "religion" which note that conceptions of religion are not historical and certainly not found in any holy texts - see "The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict" by William T Cavanaugh (Oxford University Press). Interesting stuff. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
... "STORMING THE HEAVENS" proves my point that the Bolsheviks went beyond politics into persecuting religious organizations --Ramos1990
Thank you, we are on the same page regarding the source of the persecution. Now we need to create an appropriate category to convey it. As for your other comments and personal opinions, they might make for interesting discussion someday.
Others here seem to have provided other examples of reliable sources on the matter already too. --Ramos1990
Perhaps the others would be so kind as to make them available for our review. The scant few sources provided so far, like the Peris source we've been discussing, only confirm that our present category is inaccurate and misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm...if you already agree that the issue is in things beyond communism (i.e. atheism and religion) then what is the issue? The sources of persecution are not in communism (as you originally proposed), but in atheism and anti-religious belief systems (in other words personal convictions on the nature of reality). Atheism is what the category tried to highlight - things going beyond communism or politics or economics so the category makes sense as is or with minor adjustments. Keeping in mind that Christian Communists and Muslim communists were around, it make no sense to limit anything by communism. Especially since the French (who were not communists) did engage in persecutions too. The scope is broader.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the issue, you ask? The issue is the Category:Persecution by atheists has been nominated for deletion for being a nonsensical, inaccurate and source-less category. You initially offered the Peris source as possibly supporting the absurd notion that the absence of belief in gods is the source of persecution, but it turns out Peris said the communist Bolsheviks were the source of the persecution of religious organizations. (You, me, and the source agree.) If you think your sources "make no sense", that is an issue between you and the sources. So now I'm waiting for the next of your "numerous sources" offerings. As of now, there have been no sources presented which support the "Persecuted by atheists" construction. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That ALT would probably be better again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Laurel Lodged, A secular state (such as India) is very different from an atheist state (such as North Korea). Let's refocus to the discussion at hand which is whether to keep the category or not (thus far, most votes are in favour of opposing the deletion and keeping the category). Right now, the related categories read: Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Buddhists, Persecution by atheists, etc. We need to follow standard conventions or else all of these categories would need to be renamed. Thanks.-- Jobas (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
One flaw in your assertion: atheists aren't in the "Muslims, Buddhists, etc." related category. Atheism isn't a religion like those others, so you are talking about two separate "conventions" here. Only the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" would need to be renamed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle that Category:Religious persecution by secular governments would be an improvement. To be clear moving forward, however, Xenophrenic never said advocating atheism was hardly ever the primary reason for persecution. According to reliable sources, atheism was never the reason for persecution at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Which sources? till now you didn't provide any source!.--Jobas (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English, please? Are you saying I haven't provided any sources until now? (And if so, what's the problem?) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep / Oppose In the textbook Christian History, Professor Alister E. McGrath of the University of Oxford in England writes that "From 1925 onwards, the League of Militant Atheists had urged the burning and dynamiting of huge numbers of Soviet churches, including some of great cultural importance." History is filled with several instances of persecution by atheists; Christians, in addition to Muslims, Buddhists and others have died or been placed in gulag camps as a result of intolerance by some atheist groups, in addition to atheist governments, and militant atheist leaders, such as Enver Hoxha, the dictator of the Socialist Republic of Albania. A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture states that:

Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The State recognizes no religion and supports and carries out atheist propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialist world outlook in people."

Accordingly, Edwin E. Jacques in "The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present" writes that “Northern mountaineers too insisted that the authorities should distinguish between the removal of politically unreliable priests and the fundamental human right to believe in God. Nevertheless, every mosque, church, monastery, convent, religious school, hospital or orphanage throughout the country was burned down, torn down or converted to serve what the state called ‘some more useful purpose.’” One editor's attempt to remove all the articles from this category and then nominate it for deletion is very inappropriate. Their edits will need rollbacked in due time. AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 16:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to the priest and Christian apologist Alister McGrath who spends most of his time disparaging atheists and atheism (according to his Misplaced Pages article)? Yeah, I'd be a little cautious about leaning too heavily on him in this matter. You quote him about the League of Militant Atheists, but you should realize that was an "organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism" (page 2 of the source recommended above by Ramos1990), and was a tool of the communists who were doing the actual persecution.
History is filled with several instances of persecution by atheists...
Then it should be no trouble for you to produce the reliable sources to support that contention. Please remember that we are looking for sources which state there was "Persecution by atheists", and not persecution by governments trying to eradicate religion and establish an atheistic regime, and not persecution by dictators or totalitarians who also happen to be atheist. Looking forward to your help, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well being a priest do not minimize him, wasn't Georges Lemaître who proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe a priest also?. Alister McGrath is an intellectual historian, who's currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford. who's was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture. who's has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath who's holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.--Jobas (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Gee, that's all really nice. But none of that addresses the reliably sourced fact that the League was the name given to the organization created by the Communist Party to promote atheism and eradicate religion, so the communists are the persecutors - making "Persecuted by atheists" inapplicable. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In my view this issue is a symptom from a deeper issue. While verifiability is at the core of ALL Misplaced Pages content, it appears that there is a strong reluctance to uphold this core policy for category membership and templates. I have never been convinced by any of the arguments that such category or template inclusions are harmless, and merely for convenience (as they are in my potentially misleading and even if true often original research (synthesis)). But for some reason the majority of editors simply does not appear to care about misleading implication in categories and templates. In other words, I am not sure this is the place to reach consensus on this, as similar problems are much broader across the whole project. In fact references I added to templates have been removed as overdoing it, and citation needed tags in templates have been aggressively removed because they would list all articles where the template was included as a page being insufficiently referenced (which is by definition the case by adding an unsourced template) rather than only the template itself. There does not even seem to be a way to add references to category membership (which in my view makes all challenged categories removable per core policies) Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - The 'Soviet communism = atheism' is a Christian-apologist 'talking points' meme that appeared around a decade ago, and is still somewhat popular one today (although it is growing quite tired, and has practically disappeared as a 'debate-gotcha'). It is of the opinion of some (and any citations will be to these) that it was not, in fact, a totalitarian leadership (like many organised religions) that opposed religion, but an "atheist" one. This category is only trying to 'reinforce' that selective view of reality in an effort present it as, not the selective-reality opinion it is, but fact. There are dozens of articles that try to do this as well, such as the State Atheism one... the facts within the article may be individually real, but together under that title, they are, at best, an opinion presented as fact, and, at worst, a lie. THEPROMENADER   21:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
No, I was not canvassed at all: I came across a notification that this discussion was open on the Talk:Atheism page.
The fact that someone would resort to this sort of based-on-no-evidence wikilawyering-accusation rather than present a rebuttal only underlines the above. THEPROMENADER   06:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic made a request on the atheism article, in order to WP:CANVASS users that he thought might be sympathetic to his POV here, we provide sources as According to Geoffrey Blainey: "It tends to be forgotten, however, that the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity. Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong." (source: A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and user:Huitzilopochtli provide a source shows that atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews (i.e. atheism). meanwhile he doesn't.--Jobas (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English please? We've already addressed the fact that Blainey doesn't convey that there was persecution because of atheism, and your statement "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews" has no meaning in the English language. Reword, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
again please source your comment persecution isn't a component of atheism?.--Jobas (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe I made that comment; I also did not make the comment that water is wet. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per much of ThePromenader's and Xenophrenic arguments. Putting articles together in a disputed category implies a true relation between the article name and the topic of the article. Without a reliable sources making that connection explicit that is original research / synthesis. Arnoutf (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
original research ? well Geoffrey Blainey is one of the reliable sources that been provied.--Jobas (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Your Blainey source doesn't mention "Persecution by atheists", which is what we are discussing here. You say that English is not your native language, so perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read? It doesn't support the nonsensical category you created. Blainey only says: (1) some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543. Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316). Do you have any reliable sources which actually state that there was "Persecution by atheists"? We will need those sources if we are to maintain this category. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Category / Oppose Deletion and Renaming Wait, so Xenophrenic's argument is that atheists are incapable or persecuting others who disagree with them? Entire governments committed themselves to this cause all the way from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union to North Korea today. (Personal attack removed) Eliko007 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Xenophrenic's argument is not that atheists are incapable of anything - that would be silly. Atheists are regular people, just as capable of everything you and I are capable of. Now when you say "Entire governments committed themselves to this cause", I think most of us agree - which is why we are having this discussion. Our category doesn't say "Persecution by North Korean government" or "Persecution by Soviet Union" like it should. Instead, it says "Persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical and misleading. I think you mis-typed your !vote. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: We may speak of "persecutions by communists/any other anti-religion ideology" but not of "persecutions by atheists". Atheism is not an ideology, while communism/Christianity/Islam are. We can know with certainty what a Christian/Muslim/communist believes (they have a set of beliefs/dogma), but not what is/are the beliefs of "atheist". Persecutions of religious communities by communists or nationalists were carried out for social issues: confiscation and statalization of church property, dissolution of churches which as such (a "church" is a social entity) are social bodies separated from the social state/nation/nation-state, the constitution of which is the primary objective of communist and nationalist ideologies (the argumentations for North Korea and Revolutionary France are the same: both established nation-states in which churches appear as opposing/separate bodies of different beliefs; strictly speaking, they are not even definable as atheist, since NK's ideology is based on a cult of deified Kims and French revolutionaries were Deists and instituted a Cult of the Supreme Being and Reason as a replacement of Christianity). Besides this, I notice that the category was created by Jobas after an edit war: I have been following him (and his many sockpuppets) for some time, and I find many of his edits and editing methodology to be highly problematic.--80.182.145.219 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If you genuinely believe I'm using sockpuppets, take your concerns to WP:SPI where your suspicions will be denied with prima facie evidence. and by saying I have been following him mean you stalking me? Do you not realize that is against policy?.--Jobas (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative categories or rename proposals
@Marcocapelle:, A secular state (such as India) is very different from an atheist state (such as North Korea). Let's refocus to the discussion at hand which is whether to keep the category or not (thus far, most votes are in favour of opposing the deletion and keeping the category). Right now, the related categories read: Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Buddhists, Persecution by atheists, etc. We need to follow standard conventions or else all of these categories would need to be renamed. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • With the alternative we will keep the category. But a secular state is a broader and more neutral concept than an atheist state. Editors in favor of deletion seem to be troubled mostly by the (narrower) atheist/ideological focus, I suppose we can reach a better consensus by keeping the category and broadening the scope and make it less POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, same difference, and appeals to antiquity and popularity (number) do nothing to change the fact of the matter. "But it's a different word!" is not an argument, either, because the goal (presenting selective opinion as whole-story fact) is exactly the same, and it will tell the same story, albeit without the firebrand 'atheist' tag (and it is for that that those 'pushing' the 'communism = atheism' agenda translated the 'godless' in communist propaganda to 'atheist'), to the reader.
To show that any such 'atheist only' 'persecution' category merits existence, one would have to demonstrate, with citable, objective sources, that organisations not totalitarian, dictatorships, etc., persecuted in the name of atheism (or secularism) and nothing else. THEPROMENADER   12:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The category, especially after renaming as alternatively proposed, is not in the name of an ideology, but by an institution for any reason. By secular states is just factual. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you can't demonstrate that historical consensus calls those states (and describes their acts) by that name, then it's not fact at all, it's, at best, a minority-view (opinion), and, at worst, an unsupported apologist affirmation presented as fact. Either way, it has to be presented as such, but categories and article titles are a sneaky way around that. THEPROMENADER   17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Jobas here since there is a difference between secular state vs an atheist state. Most secular states are not atheistic states at all (they are mixed like the US government or the Indian government) The point of that category is to note that atheism has been involved in persecution (e.g. the League of the Militant Godless and others). The component of persecution here is personal worldviews of reality, not politics or economics. Persecution of people due to people's personal convictions of the universe and reality are beyond the scope of any government. In a technical sense, none of the persecutions in USSR or China or Cambodia should have occurred since personal worldviews of relaity are not the business of any government. The fact that people and institutions were targeted over personal views of reality is surely disturbing since any politics could have worked irrespective of personal worldviews. The fact that they did occur is sure evidence that belief in atheism did influence persecutions to some degree. Why would atheists make organizations of promoting atheism and persecuting all other worldviews if atheism was not involved? Clearly it was. Another good text on a history of atheists persecuting in the USSR is the "The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization" By Paul Froese (University of California Press). I think that what User:Laurel Lodged proposed of Category:Religious persecution by atheists is a decent compromise or perhaps Category:Religious persecution by secularism. I think that Xenophrenic mentioned that the association of atheism with persecution might be the issue, but this is not a good reason for removal since Christianity, Islam, and others are also not inherently associated with mandates for persecuting either. Furthermore, it is certain that when any persecutions occurred, it was usually done by personnel who favored it and personnel who did not. Like any military group or campaign, the work was done but that does not mean that most participants were in favor of the actions their duty required of them.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the association of persecution with atheism has "the issue" of no causative correlation. There are no "rules" to atheism upon which an atheist might justify a persecution action, unlike with Christianity, Islam, and others. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinion on 'selective worldviews' aside (non-sequiturs that will figure nowhere in any article or category), that does nothing to change the fact that it was totalitarian/despotic/dictatorship regimes doing the persecution (the 'godless atheists' was but one Soviet-sponsored youth group, not the entire Soviet communist totalitarian-communist regime ); presenting that as just 'atheism' is both disingenuous and a partial truth (or, in other words, a falsehood), and no amount of 'selective reality' (sophism!) rhetoric unshared by any historian consensus, but only a narrow selection of apologist opinion, can change that. Presenting apologist-opinion 'talking points' without presenting them as such, especially as historical fact, is quite against everything Misplaced Pages is all about. "Category:Religious persecution by atheists' is attempting to use/abuse Misplaced Pages to WP:SOAPBOX a lie, period. THEPROMENADER   21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I applaud Marcocapelle's attempt to go beyond simply acknowledging a problem, and attempting to actually come up with solutions. The problem was the creation of a "Persecution by atheists" nonsense category by User:Jobas. It was created under the same misconception that the problematic (and now deleted) articles Historical persecution by atheism and Historical persecution by atheists were attempted - in the words of their creator: I just seems to me that if there are articles about persecutions done under religion that if it can be shown that persecutions where done under non-religion that would be balance. (--LoveMonkey) The illogic is astounding; atheism isn't "non-religion" nor a "religion", and while persecution has indeed been done in the name of various religions, persecution has never been done in the name of absence of belief in gods. Jobas statement above, Right now, the related categories read: Persecution by Muslims, Persecution by Buddhists, Persecution by atheists, etc., demonstrates the same illogic. No, Jobas, they are not "related categories" because "Muslim" and "Buddhist" imply adherence to religious tenets, while "atheist" proscribes no such religious tenets.

Marcocapelle has suggested renaming the nonsense category to Category:Religious persecution by secular governments, which has some merit for two reasons: (1) it would still allow the grouping of some very real instances of religious persecution, and (2) it correctly indicates the source of the persecution as the government or regime. The problem, however, is with the word "secular" which has potentially multiple conflicting meanings. Our article on secularism says, "One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings" which arguably could encompass Soviet hostility toward religion, but our article also says, "a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people", which does not describe the Soviet position at all, and is actually a common meaning of the word. Other editors (above) have also voiced concerns about the "secular" part. I've looked at all of the previously tagged articles listed above and I think all those with actual sourced incidents of religious persecution would be covered properly by just these: Category:Religious persecution by communists (or 'under communism'), Religious persecution under anti-clericalism. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a better compromise would be to name it Category:Religious persecution by secularism. Secularism is more of a broad term that of course includes atheist activities as opposed to "secular" which is a universal and even a Christian term from the medieval period. The argument that User:ThePromenader brings up about regimes doing the dirty business therefore their worldviews are innocent makes no sense since if the worldviews played no role then organizations like the Militant Godless should not have existed (why would atheists call themselves "atheists", then write about it and make proclamations with it?) and no religious persecutions would have occurred because communism is not inherently anti-religious (an easy example is religious communism). On top of that ALL members of any regime carry worldviews themselves, but only a few usually bring them out and manifest it in public policy and life like the Soviets did with the League of the Militant Godless. All regimes, politics, totalitarian governments are all compatible with all religions. The extra step of isolating people's worldviews when they do not impact their worldly activities is the focus of this discussion.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no compromise with mistruth. Again (and again): unless it can be demonstrated that an organisation that does not have another goal (despotism, totalitarianism, communism, etc.) conducted the persecution 'in the name of secularism' (and no other), and that historical consensus shares that view, then the 'persecution by secularism' label (which a categorisation is) is a lie. THEPROMENADER   04:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm...what you said "unless it can be demonstrated that an organisation that does not have another goal (despotism, totalitarianism, communism, etc.) conducted the persecution 'in the name of secularism' (and no other)" does not make much sense since nearly no persecution was ever done exclusively in the name of a worldview. All persecutions involve complex goals (and much of it affects the public and thus politics) of which atheism and religion take part of in some instances. Here is yet another addressing more to the point- "Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932" by William B. Husband (Northern Illinois University Press) states in the Intro: "For centuries, Russian intellectuals as well as the rank and file have vigorously debated what it means to be Russian and, with even greater passion, what the mission of Russia ought to be. The resultant array of competing prescriptions has undoubtedly enriched the country's intellectual life and reverberated strongly beyond its borders, but it has also failed to produce anything resembling consensus. The worst cases have led to persecution and bloodshed. This book examines one highly significant chapter in the ongoing contention over collective behavior in Russia: the promotion of Soviet atheism during 1917-1932. The study of belief systems - religious, ideological, philosophical, scientific, occult - provides important insight into every society, of course, and Russia is by no means unique in having experienced calamity and carnage when one group tried to alter the basic views and actions of another. Long before Marxism, efforts to eliminate heresy and apostasy, variously defined, and to control the social environment punctuated Russian history no less than the rest of the violent and intolerant premodern world. By the nineteenth century, ideas from Europe helped ferment intellectual, political, and spiritual discord in Russia, and the socioeconomic displacement and secularizing influences that everywhere accompany industrial modernization challenged tsarist institutions no less fundamentally than other monarchies and landholding aristocracies. But the cultivation of atheism in Soviet Russia also possessed distinct characteristics, none more important than the most obvious: atheism was an integral part of the world's first large scale experiment in communism. The promotion of an antireligious society therefore constitutes and important development in Soviet Russian and the social history of atheism globally...In sum, this study of early Soviet atheism will demonstrate that - in addition to well documented clashes of political parties, classes, nationalities, and interest groups - the intensity of competing cultural perceptions and aspirations in Russian society played an instrumental role in shaping the aftermath of the revolution...Therefore, whatever one's personal view of the phenomenon Russians literally call godlessness , atheism was a historical reality of the Soviet period - a belief system that millions accepted as literal truth and with which millions more reached an accommodation."
Perhaps you or Xenophrenic can point out where in communism, it is mandatory to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, priests, alter peoples belief systems, etc? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Repetition does not make truth, and address the point, not the person. And 'persecution by atheists/secularism' is the claim, so it is for it to demonstrate that it represents historical consensus.
If it was communists doing the persecution, then a factual label would be 'Soviet communist anti-religious persecution'. The goal here is to attribute 'crimes' to secularism and atheism (that are not even 'things' in themselves, let alone an organisation, so this is disingenuous, too), and that is exactly what readers will take away from it... thus the goal.
Apologism may very well attain its WP:SOAPBOX goal through other means ('tire-em-down', canvassing, 'majority rules', etc.), but none of that makes fact. THEPROMENADER   05:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You have not provided sources that show that communism was that cause of persecutions of religious people. I am actually hoping you would provide some foundation to switch from atheism to communism if you were to shift some of the blame in that direction. I already provided 3 sources by Soviet historians showing that atheism was an active component of degradation of non-atheists including influencing demise. Merely being totalitarian or communist does not mean that religion has to be persecuted, no? The only counter I see is a citation on Richard Dawkins and he is not a reliable source on the topic since he has no academic background in that matter. You should provide some sources on your view. Atheism is not just an abstraction but an empirical manifestation that is quantifiable by the fact that people self-identify as atheists, people write about atheism and society, promote atheistic identity and activism towards society, produce groups and organization to talk about atheists and what they should do in their lives and society at large, etc. Lenin-Maxism which is a fusion of atheism and communism did lead to injustices every once in a while, considering that Karl Marx alone (communism) had some mixed positive views on religion, the negative stuff came from somewhere else. The amount of devastation done to religious believers seems inexplicable except throught putting some of the blame on radicalized atheism - which why aggressive attempts were done to make atheists, not communists.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Again again again, 'atheist persecution' (as 'atheism' and nothing else) is the claim, so it is for it to demonstrate historical consensus (and no amount of talk-page sophistry is a replacement for this). It does not have it, thus the attempt to shift the burden of proof. THEPROMENADER   06:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Again - Already addressed that numerous times. Atheists persecuting religious people at social, cultural, institutional and even personal levels. Who else is persecuting religion? Communist Christians? Communist Muslims? Lack of citations for pure communism being the culprit does not really help.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No, you ignored it several times. 'Communist persecution of religion' would be accurate and reflects historical consensus. 'Atheist persecution of religion' is not and does not, and we both know that. THEPROMENADER   08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope already addressed with quotes from historians. Communism itself is not the source of antireliigon - it was atheism. There would be no need for the emergence of the League of Millitant Atheists if communism is all that was needed to do the persecutions. If communism is anti-religion by default then provide a source by a historian showing that it was the cause of antireligion. It should not be hard if it is so common of a view. Finding sources on atheism as being involved in the persecutions are not hard to find either, which is why I have provided some already. Here is another one "Anti-religious Propaganda in the Soviet Union: Study of Mass Persuasion" by David E Powell (MIT Press). Huitzilopochtli (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Historical consensus, but I have repeated myself so often that you must be purposely disingenuous at this point. You can attempt to rationalise your unshared-by-historic-consensus apologist propaganda all you like, but attempting to use wikipedia (and game it) to spread it as a 'fact'-label when it is not is flagrant abuse of it. THEPROMENADER   09:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Since most of the articles this category has been applied to concern Communist Russia's persecution of religion, there is no reason that a 'Communist Russian anti-religion' (or the like) category would not suffice for articles that apply; historical consensus supports it.
The ignoring historic consensus (to favour only a few selective publications (and even these do not support this category's claim, as demonstrated earlier)), with the insistance on using the word 'atheist' (or 'secularist') alone only demonstrates that the goal here is to use Wikepedia to spread a narrow Christian-apologist anti-atheist agenda-opinion and make it seem fact. This is clear for all. THEPROMENADER   09:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
How is this ignoring historical consensus when historical consensus acknowledges atheism as a core component of Soviet society? It's called Marxist–Leninist for a very good reason (a fusion of communism-Marx and atheism-Lenin) and there is a reason why historians regularly refer to it as that combination. Lenin can be blamed for inserting atheism when none of it was needed. You speak of historical consensus when you have not provided an example of historians actually removing atheism form their society. Again who did the persecutions? Christians? Jews? Even today, pretty much all the anti-religion rhetoric is fueled by atheists and their groups. There are not many candidates for sources of active anti-religion. The category merely notes that atheists have contributed to persecuted other for various reasons in the same way that Muslims or others have - of course no persecution is ever based soley on worldview, much of t is triggered by secular - mundane motives. But the denial of such basic historical facts is a bit worrying.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If what you claimed was true, you could cite any mainstream source, yet you can't, and even the ones you cite do not support your claim. Your agenda is clear. THEPROMENADER   10:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The extra step of isolating people's worldviews when they do not impact their worldly activities is the focus of this discussion. --Huitzilopochtli (Ramos1990)
Huh? No. The focus of this discussion is the nonsensical and policy-violating Category:Persecution by atheists. More specifically in this sub-section of the discussion, we're discussing the possible creation of alternative categories which adhere to Misplaced Pages policy and reliable sources, and still allow us to categorize some notable instances of religious persecution. All the superfluous talk about "worldviews" and what-not appear to be distractions not related to the matter at hand. And please remember: "atheism" is not a "worldview". ("Atheism itself is not a worldview, it is not a philosophy of life." --Krueger 1998)
Perhaps you or Xenophrenic can point out where in communism, it is mandatory to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, priests, alter peoples belief systems, etc? --Huitzilopochtli (Ramos1990)
If you are objecting to having "communism" or "communists" in the name of proposed new categories describing those at fault for religious persecution, I somewhat share your concern. The aggression against religions (churches, priests, etc.) is not an actual principle of communism, just as it is not a principle of atheism, or even Marxism (see Marxism and religion). The antagonism toward religion (using the Soviet history as an example) can be traced to Leninism and particularly the establishment of the Soviet Union. In your opinion, do you think it would be more feasible to create multiple subcategories under "Religious persecution" based upon specific government regimes (i.e.; Soviet Union) instead of ideologies (i.e.; communism)? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Split -- Some of the items in the list relate to persecution by communists, as a result their atheist ideology, but the martyrs of the Spanish Civil War were probably the victims of anti-clericalism, rather than specifically of atheism. There may be some other sub-classes. One answer may be to encourage the content to be moved to a series of sub-cats, leaving this as a container. We can then decide whether it is useful as a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
...as a result their atheist ideology...
Let's try to keep our terminology accurate, please, just to avoid confusion. As we know, "atheist ideology" isn't a thing, and atheism isn't an ideology. (Atheism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an "atheist mindset" or an "atheist movement." Atheism per se hasn't inspired and doesn't lead to anything in particular because it is an effect--not a cause--and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe... --Perkins 2008) It simply means absence of belief in deities. Can we assume you meant "anti-religious ideology"?
One answer may be to encourage the content to be moved to a series of sub-cats...
I agree with that much, User:Peterkingiron, and have proposed as much above, with Category:Religious persecution as the container. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
We could, of course, put those articles in the "Religious persecution" category until we have suitable subcategories. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • General comments
  1. There is a lot in the above discussion referring specifically to communists. Note that communists have a category of their own: Category:Religious persecution by communists, which is a category that is not nominated here. The more typical examples for the nominated category are Mexico in the 1920s and republican Spain in the 1930s.
  2. There is a lot in the above discussion referring to goals of persecutors. Note that the original alternative proposal Category:Religious persecution by secular governments is goal-free, it only tells us who the persecuting party is, namely governments of countries that have separated church and state. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Marcocapelle State atheism is a term used for a government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. The Religious persecution was State atheism that tried to promotes atheism.--Jobas (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Atheist states are a subset of secular states, as they have separated church and state too. There's not going to be any consensus in this discussion on whether certain states have persecuted religious people with the goal to promote atheism, but I still believe that we can reach consensus on the fact that certain secular states (like Mexico and Spain) have persecuted religious people for whatever goal. After all, by strict logical reasoning, the goal to promote atheism is a subset of 'for whatever goal'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Marcocapelle, Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism", Many priests were killed and imprisoned. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into hospitals. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution. This league was a "nominally independent organization established to promote atheism.", criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden and sometimes resulted in imprisonment.
During the rule of Plutarco Elías Calles, Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state, and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico. ( Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress: The dismal fate of new nations, Cornell Univ. Press 2000).
And as i said before a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion, While an State atheism is a term used for a government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it not clear here that the goal is taking an aspect of a totalitarian regime and making it seem... the regime itself by using it as a label for its actions? And why that label? This is not only selective, unsupported by any historical consensus), but a demonstration of a clear apologist and anti-atheist agenda (as, demonstrably, only these try to present this 'view' (as fact!))... this is already bad enough, but the refusal to accept any term but 'atheism' makes the goal of making 'atheism' seem an identifiable 'group' or 'groupthink' (which it is not, unlike communism and other religions) in order to better denigrate it very very clear. Because denigration is the goal here.
There is no reason why a totalitarian regime's persectutions (of competing totalitarian organisations (like many religions)) cannot be attributed to the regime/organisation as it is commonly known and referred to by historical consensus, and these regrouped under a 'persecution of religion' category. Anyone truely interested in sharing fact would have no problem with this. THEPROMENADER   22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The categories of "Persecution By Muslims", "Persecution by Christians" suffer similar ambiguities to the category we are discussing because governments were involved in those cases too, which had diverse goals, not just one. It is quite difficult to label any conflict as merely driven by abstractions like Theism or Islam or Christianity or Atheism. None of these abstractions promote persecution in and of themselves because they are all theoretical, but that would not mean that empirical and measurable manifestations would not occur. In the case of atheists in the Soviet Union we do have noticeable aftershocks as Pew Research Center data has shown that there were solid rises in religious self-identification away from "unaffiliated" (which includes atheism, agnosticism, etc) all of a sudden right after the USSR fell (per their graphs). They note, "For centuries, Orthodox Christianity was the dominant religion in Russia. This began to change in the early 20th century, following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the imposition of state-sponsored atheism as part of communist ideology. During the Soviet period, many priests were imprisoned, many churches were converted to other uses or fell into disrepair, and people who publicly professed religious beliefs were denied prestigious jobs and admission to universities. While it is likely that some share of the population continued, in private, to identify with the Orthodox Church and other religious groups, it is impossible to measure the extent to which these attachments survived underground during the Soviet period and to what extent they faded away." It makes sense that under diverse persecution, people would make stealth identities to reduce the damage or already be gone or dead, but the rise since the early 90's is noticeable. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that other categories, "Persecution By Muslims", "Persecution by Christians", etc., should be reviewed, I would be interested in participating if you decide to nominate them for review. The reasons Category:Persecution by atheists is being deleted probably will not apply to those other categories, however. As for your observations regarding the "communist ideology" mentioned by the Pew source, I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that "During the Soviet period, many priests were imprisoned, many churches were converted to other uses or fell into disrepair, and people who publicly professed religious beliefs were denied prestigious jobs and admission to universities." Religious persecution did happen. The reason the category is being deleted is because it misleads our readers as to the source of the persecution. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...the Pew source noted "...the imposition of state-sponsored atheism..." in the sentence before (see quote). In other words atheism with power and resources, not mere communism. Any abstraction or idea with power can lead to strong misuse because people will add flesh to it like the Soviets did with their version of atheism (they wrote about it, made organizations about it, made holidays about it, went into people's worldviews about it, they persecuted their metaphysical competition, etc). I may consider the other categories later on.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No amount of 'selective reality' sophism (that will not appear in a category label) will change the fact that you are attempting to take the actions of totalitarian Soviet communism (and even 'communism' in that label is disingenuous, but I digress) and make atheism seem their cause, origin and motivation. This attempt to mislead readers, and WP:SOAPBOX a demonstrably anti-atheist agenda, is a blatant misuse of Misplaced Pages.
Again, if the goal was indeed presenting a factual regrouping to readers, then there would be no problem with attributing the persecutions to their authors using the terms they are most commonly referred to by the public and historical consensus. But the effort here to ignore both historical consensus and reality (disassociating and singling out one choice action of the totalitarian-'communism' 'cause') to attempt to pin the blame on 'atheism' through an 'atheism' (and no other!) label is a clear demonstration that (ab)using Misplaced Pages to WP:SOAPBOX an agenda, not fact, is the goal here. THEPROMENADER   09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep / Oppose There are allot of POV editors on this allot that also appeared in the State atheism Straw poll . Misplaced Pages census does not overide valid sourcing from scholarly sources. Editors on this discussion will not accept sources and instead want to bring things up for a vote to override with is in peer reviewed sources. Sources that say atheism is a source of persecution. 2015 Chapel Hill shooting is but a recent example. On the government or state level you have scientific atheism which persecutes religions and people of those religions. There is nothing to say that people whom have religious convictions by reason of atheism should have their religious rights given or protected. As a matter of history examples like the War in the Vendée and the Cristero War that are not just Eurasian. LoveMonkey (talk)
I would like to see what scholars like say Paul Froese have to say about these logical fallacies that are being treated as valid positions. As the entire argument to have the categories deleted is in essence an argument from silence. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What logical fallacies? Just calling something one doesn't make it one (at best it's a 'fallacy fallacy' ; ). Anyhow, I'm very sure that if someone wanted to say that the Kennedy assassination was a communist plot, they could find 'valid sources'... but that, too, would be a agenda'd mistruth in total defiance of what historical consensus says. The claim in question is present in Christian apologetic sources only (and this is not an 'argument from silence'; it's a demonstrable fact that damns itself). So this vote, too, is founded on nothing demonstrable.THEPROMENADER   20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The argument from silence as I have already stated. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't even make any sense; you do realise that you're on Misplaced Pages, where all claims must be reflected/backed by reliable sources (and not just a few selective anti-atheist/apologetic ones), right? THEPROMENADER   13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming bad faith as you and your side here say things like "English please" and this or that "doesnt even make sense" to you as if you have to be in agreement, policy here says thats not so that behavior is a characteristic of disruptive editing. If you can not hear or understand which is a vio called WP:IDHT then you are not here to contribute you are here to disrupt. Here is a reliable source - Professor Paul Froese . Here is a line from that reliable source "This article is dedicated to explaining why Communists could not successfully convert the masses to atheism." Your response says you can understand and that you instead refuse to understand and that you will not listen. By saying you can't understand or you refuse to listen you are not being reasonable you are not being rational. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
When one has no argument, try ad hominem (and I never asked for 'English', by the way, and your 'argument from silence' demonstrably does not make sense). If the 'communism = atheism' claim was true, then it would appear in mainstream sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. It doesn't, so go figure. THEPROMENADER   22:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
According to your Froese source, The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. Note that the persecutor is the Communist Party (which is why we are deleting the nonsensical "Persecuted by atheists" category), and possibly creating a "Religious persecution by Communist Party" category, or something equally accurate. Please also note that since "scientific atheism" a belief system, that means it isn't atheism, so we really should stop misleading our readers. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jobas, LoveMonkey, Ramos1990, and others are correct here. Renaming the category to "secular governments" or "secularism" only dilutes the fact that individuals and governments persecuted the religious to impose atheism on society at large. The category should therefore continue to remain as its current name, Category:Persecution by atheists. To echo the comments above, a secular state such as India, is very different from a state that has a policy of state-sponsored militant atheism, like North Korea. Eliko007 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this is "me, too" category; where someone is attributing "by atheists" to various secular, even officially atheist, governments. We don't including all the categories of oppression by Foo, the acts of every governmental agency run by Fooish folks; if so, these categories would have endless views of what constitutes oppression and which religion had control of its perpetrating entity: are/were laws against sodomy oppression by Islam in Iran, by Christianity in Germany, by atheism in the Soviet Union, and by ??? in the United States - or were they policy choices by the bodies politic of the place and time? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Reply Isn't every sub-cat a "me, too" category? I'm not aware of persecutions committed by secularists as secularists. Secularists, actuated only by their secularism, irrespective of their standing as religious or non religious, don't do such things. Only secularists who also happen to be atheists occasionally indulge in persecutions. Can a secularist who is religious be a persecutor? If he is, then he cannot be truly a secularist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Laurel (I agree with your reply to Carlossuarez46) what you are saying is sort of whats at fault and is what for example Professor Paul Froese addresses in that how secularism fails is when it works WITH atheism and is directed then by the no religion or religion prohibition, goal. Secularism then becomes hi jacked by atheism into endorsing atheism as the religious stance of the state enforced by the state. Thats the whole point of this entire set of interactions. As you have POV warrior atheists whom keep repeating the same logical fallacy of argument from silence claiming because no sources they will accept say that atheism and or atheists ever persecuted or oppressed anyone. Or that atheism never persecuted anyone to force them to give up their religion. Or that atheism never sought laws and government force to the prohibit religion the outlawing of religion and or the prohibition or outlawing of religious practice again toward the goal of atheism and or no theism. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Your repeatedly citing the 'argument from silence' is more than a tad ridiculous, especially when all Misplaced Pages claims depend on historical record and consensus (or they cannot appear!). And it has been demonstrated many times already that the few sources attributing said persecution to 'atheism' (and not Soviet communist-totalitarianism) are anti-atheist and apologetic, and this is not reflected in mainstream/historical consensus publications at all. Misplaced Pages is not a platform to WP:SOAPBOX a decidedly agenda'd WP:ESSAY.
Note to moderators: Fact-check everything, please; even this. THEPROMENADER   13:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
You have no scholarly sources that say atheism has never persecuted anyone. You have no scholarly sources that say atheists has never persecuted anyone. You state over and over again that because sources that have been provided to you by me and other editors (again Professor Paul Froese for example ) here do not say exactly as you insist that they do not say what they actually say. Just because they did not use your exact wording does not mean that in their silence that they source you position. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes please have the moderators note the quote from Professor Froese "This article is dedicated to explaining why Communists could not successfully convert the masses to atheism." It does not say convert the masses to communism does it? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Even your citation "This article is dedicated to explaining why Communists could not successfully convert the masses to atheism." (which is not '"This article is dedicated to explaining why atheists could not successfully convert the masses to atheism." that this category claims) demonstrates the mistruth in a 'persecution by atheists' label. Cheers. THEPROMENADER   22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and Paul Froese is demonstrably an anti-atheist apologist, which even better demonstrates that it is a fringe agenda that is being soapboxed here. If the 'atheist persecution' claim was true, one would think that, in a Christianity-dominated English-speaking world, that there would be ample mainstream documentation supporting it... that isn't the case at all, so go figure. THEPROMENADER   22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect, LoveMonkey. Nobody is discussing converting anyone to anything. We are discussing persecution. Froese says the Soviets / Communist Party were the persecutors; they exiled the clergy (sometimes imprisoned or even killed them). The only thing some "atheists" might attack - because of their atheism - is religious belief, not people. If they are also going to persecute people, it will not be because of atheism, it will be because of some ideology. And your Froese source agrees. As for no scholarly sources, see below. I also urge you to read your sources more carefully. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources conveying that persecution was not "by atheists", but by the totalitarian regimes and dictators who tried to suppress or abolish religion and usher in an atheistic society.
Many of these same sources also identify the "by atheists" meme as a popular myth propagated by theists, theologians and religious apologists. --Xenophrenic
For good people to do evil doesn't require only religion, or any religion, but simply one of its key elements: belief without evidence--in other words, faith. And that kind of faith is seen not just in religion, but in any authoritarian ideology that puts dogma above truth and frowns on diseent. This was precisely the case in the totalitarian regimes of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, whose excesses are often (and wrongly) blamed on atheism.
— Faith Versus Fact - Jerry A. Coyne - Viking Publishers, 2015; Pgs. 220
Although it was not fully successful in its mission, the Soviet-led antireligious campaign might have had some lasting effects, as the proportion of atheists and nonreligious in post-Soviet societies remains quite high even in the absence of scientific atheist propaganda and coercion.

In the midst of gaining power, the Bolsheviks began an antireligious campaign seeking to disestablish influential religions like Eastern Orthodoxy, to nationalize all church property, and to transfer responsibility in providing public services (such as birth, marriage, and death registration) from church to state organizations. Seeing religion as antithetical to the modern project of socialist political and economic development, revolutionary leaders thought it necessary to disentangle religious institutions from the state and to create conditions in which religion was deemed irrelevant to society's members.

The timing for an antireligious campaign seemed ripe in the late tsarist regime as an increasing portion of the population, especially in Russia, was disenchanted with the close role the Russian Orthodox Church bore with the state. ... Thus, even though the Soviet regime would be the first regime ever to devise a campaign promoting atheism, a general skepticism (at least with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church) was already present at the eve of the revolution. ... Seeking immediate separation, the newly established Bolshevik leaders provoked an antireligous campaign that often involved violent, coercive actions. This initial campaign was followed by a relatively calm period (although intimidation tactics and arrests of clerics continued), which focused on propaganda and socialization. ... The conflicts during the Civil War era, however, were eventually seen as counterproductive to the cause of establishing an atheist socialist society. Thus, most of the 1920s witnessed a shift from directly coercive measures to gradual measures to socialize citizens as atheists.

In 1925, the Party established the Soviet League of the Militant Godless (or, Militant Atheists) to organize a systematic program against religion. ... The League of the Militant Godless was conceived as an association of volunteers who were committed to promoting "scientific materialism" through eductional activities like lectures, reading circles, and promotional materials. The League's creation symbolized the Bolshevik regime's attempts to shift the antireligious campaign away from coercion to socialization. However, this shift toward a more passive antireligious campaign was not supported unanimously.
— Atheism and Secularity (Vol. 2) - Edited by Phil Zuckerman - Praeger, 2010 - Pgs. 46-47
A fundamental tenet of Marxism-Leninism is that religion will ultimately disappear. If it began to seem unlikely to do so, the authorities would naturally adopt measures to promote its disappearance, since its continued presence was a rebuke to the claims of the ideology. The above impulse was reinforced when the system developed into full totalitarianism (in the USSR, from the late 1920s): the internal compulsion of such a system demanded the liquidation of any social institution (not just religious) which was not under its complete control.
— Religious Policy in the Soviet Union - Edited by Sabrina Petra Ramet - Cambridge University Press, 1993 - Pgs. 4
If God defines what is good and what is evil, then those who follow God's commands are morally justified to commit similar atrocities. History shows the result: holy wars, burning of heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil War, witch hunts, cultural genocide, brutal conquests of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans, ethnic cleansing, slavery, colonialist tyranny, and pogroms against the Jews eventually leading to the Holocaust.

Theists try to counter all this by pointing to the mass-murdering atheists of the twentieth century: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu, Enver Hoxa, and Kim Jong-Il, as if this somehow justifies the religious mass murders that they can hardly deny. Hitler is usually included in the litany, but he was a Catholic. Indeed, the Cathollic Church never excommunicated a single Nazi, but in 2010 it excommunicated nun Margaret McBride for allowing an abortion that was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

Religion scholar Hector Avalos has studied documents from the Stalin era that only recently became available. He points out that there is no documented statement in which Stalin justified his actions by saying something such as, "I don't believe in God, therefore I am committing violent act X." On the other hand, in all the examples we saw above of terrorists associated with some religion, you can find direct statements of the form, "God wants X, therefore I am committing violent act Y." Avalos says, "We cannot find any direct evidence that Stalin's own personal agenda killed because of atheism."

Now you might argue that while Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism, his godlessness failed to provide any restraint on his behavior. But then, neither has godliness provided much restraint to the murderers of history.

Avalos does not deny that Stalin committed many antireligious acts. But the predominant acts of violence committed dring the period 1932-39, called the Great Purge, or the Great Terror, were clearly political in nature. Religion played a minor role. If a church went along, it was left alone. If it objected, it was persecuted along with everybody else who refused to cooperate.
— God and the Folly of Faith - Victor J. Stenger - Prometheus Books, 2012 - Pgs. 254-255
Neither religious belief nor religous disbelief is a guarntee of good behavior. Incentives like greed, power, anger, resentment, fear, or desperation can overwhelm the moral incentives listed earlier in the previous section, which can make an atheist or a believer behave badly.

Still, plenty of people in both camps spend an enormous amount of energy trying to paint the other side as immoral by using the bad behavior of famous monsters--dictators or criminals drunk on greed, power, anger, and all the rest--as an indictment of everyone who shares the monster's religious (or nonreligious) label.

But using the horrendous acts of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, or Adolf Hitler, or Fred Phelps to draw conclusions about the average Ned Flanders Christian is a stretch. Likewise, thinking that Idi Amin or Osama bin Laden are any reflection on the moral character of my Muslim neighbors ignores all the other variables that made the famous monsters what they were.

The same applies to Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and other atheists with immoral behavior to answer for. Like the religious villains, their actions say more about unchecked power than about their opinions of gods. And drawing conclusions about what it means to be an everyday atheist from Stalin is as silly as doubting the ethics of a passing Quaker because Torquemada lost his moral compass.
— 'Atheism For Dummies - Dale McGowan, PhD. - John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd., 2013 - Pgs. 257
"Hitler and Stalin were atheists. What have you got to say about that?" The question comes up after just about every public lecture that I ever give on the subject of religion ... It is put in a truculent way, indignantly freighted with two assumptions: not only (1) were Stalin and Hitler atheists, but (2) they did their terrible deeds because they were atheists ... assumption (2) is false. ... What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively, dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism...
— The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008 - Pgs. 278; 315-316
To view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Just as the failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system. From the mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any particular positive beliefs. One's positive convictions are quite distinct from the subject of atheism. ... The practice of linking atheism with a set of beliefs, especially moral and political beliefs, allows the theist to lump atheists together under a common banner, with the implication that one atheist agrees with the beliefs of another atheist. And here we have the ever popular "guilt by association." Since communists are notoriously atheistic, argue some theists, there must be some connection between atheism and communism. The implication here is that communism is somehow a logical outgrowth of atheism, so the atheist is left to defend himself against the charge of latent communism. This irrational and grossly unfair practice of linking atheism with communism is losing popularity and is rarely encountered any longer except among political conservatives. But the same basic technique is sometimes used by the religious philosopher in his attempt to discredit atheism.
— Atheism: The Case Against God - George H. Smith - Prometheus Books, 2010 - Pgs. 21-22
While most theists accept that religion has resulted in much unnecessary suffering and history, they argue that atheists, notably Stalin, Mao and Hitler, killed more people in the twentieth century alone than were killed for religious reasons in all the previous centuries put together. ... found no evidence that Stalin killed because of atheism. Rather, the data indicate that Stalin's genocide was driven by the politics of forced collectivization.
— The New Atheism - Victor J. Stenger - Prometheus Books Pgs. 115-116
Myth 27: Many Atrocities Have Been Committed in the Name of Atheism This sort of claim is often made by theists. (Several are named, including McGrath) ... Isn't it interesting that the list of evil-doers always seems to begin with Hitler followed by Stalin and Pol Pot--sometimes with Mao Zedong added for good measure? ... It's standard operating procedure for Christian apologists. ... Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were actually atheists, but they acted in the name of their positive belief systems, not in the name of a liberal critique of religion. ... Other dictatorships that committed their share of atrocities were certainly not driven by atheism. For example, Franco's Spain was controlled by an expressly Catholic idology. Similar comments could be made about other fascist movements and dictatorships, most notably Ustashi in Croatia. ... the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and to Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. ... Can we find any grain of truth in this myth? Yes. There were persecutions of churches ... however, Stalin and other communist leaders were more concerned with the political influence that organized churches could exercise than with the substance of any particular beliefs, or with an insistence that their populations renounce belief in God. The Soviet regime viewed the churches and their leaders as political rivals that had to be neutralized for it to succeed in its goals. ... Similar comments can be made about the regime of Mao Zedong. ... A similar pattern of utter ruthlessness, combined with attempted economic transformation on an apocalyptic scale can be seen in the conduct of the Khmer Rouge regime ... While we do not doubt that religious people were often targeted as enemies of all these regimes' grandiose plans, this was usually because churches and other religious authorities (such as those related to Confucian tradition in China) were seen as actual or potential sources of resistence. ... None of this followed from mere atheism, and instead far more comprehensive political and economic ideologies were relied upon.
— 50 Great Myths About Atheism - Russell Blackford, Udo Schüklenk - John Wiley & Sons, 2013 - Pgs. 147-149
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot possessed a complete hatred of anyone opposed to their communist ideals. Those who dared to challenge communism were simply removed. They were atheists, certainly, but like most atheists this fact meant little to them. That they did not believe in God was something that they had in common, but equally all three men had dark hair. Nobody is suggesting that hair colour has fuelled their genocidal tendencies. The driving force for their persecution of religion was communism. It was also the driving force for their persecution of all land-owners, political opponents, intellectuals, and dissenters. Their motivation was not atheism, it was communism.
— The Atheists Are Revolting! - Nick Gisburne - Lulu Press, 2007 - Pgs. 140
Before we can proceed, it is critically important to realize that the entire "debate" in Western civilization about atheism and religion has been conducted in religious, and more specifically theistic, terms. Two gross, and false, assumptions have driven this debate. The first is that religion, and more specifically theism, is the default position: most people are religious/theists, and atheism is the exception: something not only to be explained but to be opposed. The second is that religion is theism, and therefore atheism is "a-religion" and "anti-religion." humans are not "natural theists"; that is why it takes so many years of teaching and indoctrination, so much institutional weight, so much colonization of experience, to instill the concept of theism. Humans are natural atheists -- not in the sense of attacking god(s) but in the sense of lacking god(s). No newborn human has any ideas about, let alone any "beliefs in," god(s) -- or for that matter, any other religious entities. No human is born a theist. Humans are born without any god-concepts. Humans are natural atheists. The second and more pernicious source of error is the attribution of "belief" to atheists, sometimes literally the insistence that atheism is a belief. Theists certainly, and atheists occasionally too, will say that atheism is a belief -- the belief that god(s) does (do) not exist. This is a familiar and seductive way of thinking, since "belief" is such a ubiquitous and powerful concept. Surely, Christians argue, belief is universal and essential to religion; still more, religion is only one kind of belief. Theists often go so far as to call science a belief-system, to equate all knowledge with belief. The relevant point for current purposes is that absence of belief, even active rejection of a belief, is not itself a belief. Atheism, as we have established, is not a "belief" that there is no such thing as god(s) but a default or a reasoned lack of any such belief.
— Atheism and Secularity (Vol. 1) - Edited by Phil Zuckerman - Praeger, 2010 - Pgs. 1-8
First of all, there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism.  A state can ban religion, but it cannot ban atheism because it is not a belief, a faith, a set of doctrines or dogmas and cannot be imposed on anybody.  Atheism is an absence of belief, and you cannot ban something that does not exist.  I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion.  They say it takes faith.  They accuse us of hating god.  Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. This chapter, however, will deal with the claims about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mass Murder and Broken Relationships.  We'll start with the people mentioned, and, as far as I'm aware, none of them said "I don't believe in god, therefore I will slaughter lots of innocent people". ...

Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism.  It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country. For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god.  At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant.  The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god.  Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort.  Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch.  Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist.  He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait.  He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.
— A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet Earth - Al Stefanelli - UAF Publishers, 2011 - Pgs. 230-234
ATHEIST REGIMES The first ever officially declared atheist nation in the world was Albania under the role of communist dictator Enver Hoxha ... The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was also explicitly atheistic ... Finally, we must acknowledge North Korea, one of the worst nations on earth today in just about all respects ... North Korea maintains a state sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being the worship of the dictator. ... there is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic ... we know that when power is held undemocratically, the result will always be negative. Fascism, totalitarianism, communism--all such forms of national dominance have been based on might and repression, rather than freedom and liberty. ... research has consistently shown that the correlation still holds: the least theistic democracies fare better on nearly all indicators of social well-being than the more theistic democracies. ... This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society.
— The Oxford Handbook of Atheism - edited by Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse - Oxford University Press, 2014 - Pgs. 506-508
So now we have the two atheist editors on here engaging in ad hominem personal attacks against Professor Froese and saying that no scholarly source say that atheists whom happened to be communists (as there are such things as Christian communists) killed people and attempted to convert them to atheism NOT just communism as the quote I noted. So we have the fallacy of personal attacks and the fallacy of argument from silence and now we have editor Xenophrenic posting quotes that either do not say what he is sourcing them to say (they do say atheists did persecute people) or it appears Xenophrenic is and continues to be engaging in argument for the logical fallacy of No true Scotsman that these Atheist socialists or atheist communists did not attempt by violence, repression and force to not only force-able convert people to either communism and or socialism AND ATHEISM, but that no true atheist would do such a thing-hence the fallacy No true Scotsman. As atheism does not require that people agree with it and yet I gave a scholar whom says it did in the USSR use the government to try and force people to convert to it (atheism). Therefore these humans now are no longer humans because they are the every changing term atheists (another fallacy called moving the goal posts). These arguments appear to be made in echo chambers as atheists deny any repression committed by atheists but use the standard when theists do repressive things and if the standard be that Muslim terrorists kill in the name of their religion so too atheist (like the Chapel Hill murders ) kill Muslims in the name of no religion or non belief or atheism. As editors here are forever fighting to say only they understand what atheism is and also that we (Misplaced Pages) have to get them to agree to atheism being non belief until we point out that someone says that people have done bad stuff because of non belief then again we go back to it being these bad people did bad stuff but that only happens if said people are theist as soon as they are atheists their unbelief in the good or God as Plato says had nothing to do with the bad that they did. That is absolutely irrational and an absolute denial of human nature. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No, you have two contributors (identity politics brings nothing to the argument) patiently demonstrating that what some are attempting to push as fact here (through using categories as labels) reflects neither reality nor historical consensus, but an identifiable-group (and observing that the author is part of it is not 'ad hominem') fringe opinion. That's it. Myself, I add the WP:SOAPBOX element to it, because that's demonstrably what's going on here (attempts to abuse Misplaced Pages this way are many - it's the world's most consulted site, after all). THEPROMENADER   07:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The article provided by User:LoveMonkey is pretty good! That journal is top notch too! Not sure why most of the abstract is ignored when it does address the issue: "Under communism, the Russian religious landscape consisted mainly of two competitors—a severely repressed Russian Orthodox Church and a heavily promoted atheist alternative to religion called “scientific atheism.” Under these circumstances, one might expect the rapid spread of religious disbelief, but the intensity of the atheist campaign originated from official mandate and not popular appeal. In turn, scientific atheism never inspired the Russian population and grew increasingly uninspired as Soviet officials created a monopoly “church” of scientific atheism in hopes of replacing persistent religious beliefs and practices. It also note coercion for these goals.
In the body of the article it clearly notes "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs. This article seeks to explain why atheists, with the full support of a totalitarian state, were unsuccessful in secularizing Russian society." It is pretty clear and the article fleshes out quite well the activities that "atheists" did engage in.
I think that is is pretty clear that the issue is not "atheism" per se (that is an abstraction like Islam or Christianity), but what atheists there did to affect people's personal beliefs about reality (which is beyond the scope of any normal secular government). Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"I think that is is pretty clear that the issue is not "atheism" per se"
Thank you for that, at least. In reality, what you have is two competing 'we think for you (so obey, or else!)' totalitarian organisations, and the dominating one kicking the competition out. Of course, presenting things here that way is out of the question, because historical consensus and most references do not. THEPROMENADER   07:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It is sort of like the difference between "racism" and "racist". Racism is an abstraction (and is harmless really), but the focus of the category is on the racist (actual actions and deeds by agents who discriminate by race). In the case of atheists, they discriminated by beliefs in the supernatural and personal belief systems of reality when there was no need for it. Does this help?Huitzilopochtli (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"Racism is an abstraction (and is harmless really)"... on the side, that is a troubling declaration. THEPROMENADER   10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No, you're actually distracting/muddling the issue by by descending into sophism again. You keep declaring (accusing) that 'atheists did' (and seek to advertise that), but the overwhelming majority of the historical record says 'communists did', and that's the only point here. THEPROMENADER   10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jobas1990 that the Froese source "clearly notes" that the "Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union" and work toward a secularized society, just as they have continued to do in much of the Western world until present day, while the "The Communist Party" destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders..." - or, in short, persecuted. So a category named "Religious persecution by a communist party" does have at least one source to support it. The Froese source does not support the nonsensical "Persecution by atheists" creation, however. The Froese source mentions "persecution/persecuted" exactly six times, and every time attributes it to Soviets / Communists - not atheists or atheism. What the "totalitarian state" did to persecute religion with the hopes to create an atheistic society was indeed beyond normal secular government, and this Froese article correctly places blame (unlike our misleading category under discussion).
As for calling "racism" a harmless abstraction, or equating atheism with Islam and Christianity, those opinions require a whole separate discussion and are wholly unrelated to the matter at hand. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
So the 70-year war waged by atheists and the communists who destroyed churches & mosques were two different groups? Is this what you would have us believe? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:GKIDS animated films

Nominator's rationale: I'd actually helped to categorize this a while back without realizing that this was a distributor, not producer. As stated at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15#Category:Drafthouse_Films_films and other Cfds, films have multiple distributors per market and medium, and accordingly this has never been considered to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Roman forts in England

Nominator's rationale This one seems to have been left behind by a previous CFM. Just a tidy-up. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Instead Merge Category:Roman fortified camps in England‎ to Category:Ancient Roman forts in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Reply A lot of re-categorisations could be done to improve this after this nomination goes ahead. I see nothing in the nom that would have an adverse effect on what has been written above. Let's clear the anomaly first then do some judicious re-categorisations where necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Smart speaker

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CAT, should be plural. McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename This seems like an obvious answer. I don't see why anyone else would object. 22:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliko007 (talkcontribs)