Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150116043952/http://www.minorityrights.org/3273/normative-instruments/ccpr-general-comment-22-300793-on-iccpr-article-18.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/3273/normative-instruments/ccpr-general-comment-22-300793-on-iccpr-article-18.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122134930/http://www.jo.se/Page.aspx?MenuId=106&MainMenuId=106&Language=sv&ObjectClass=DynamX_SFS_Decision&Id=2100 to http://www.jo.se/Page.aspx?MenuId=106&MainMenuId=106&Language=sv&ObjectClass=DynamX_SFS_Decision&Id=2100
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602034511/http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.php to http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120041820/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20060327/muslims_conversion_060327/ to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20060327/muslims_conversion_060327/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130924185308/https://iranianatheists.org/issues-1.html to https://iranianatheists.org/issues-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509081026/http://www.americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/14/a/3436/2012_IRF_Report.pdf to http://www.americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/14/a/3436/2012_IRF_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discrimination against atheists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421084020/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/045/2001/en/73a8bc2a-d8ae-11dd-ad8c-f3d4445c118e/mde130452001en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/045/2001/en/73a8bc2a-d8ae-11dd-ad8c-f3d4445c118e/mde130452001en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Anti-atheism be merged into Discrimination against atheists. The anti-atheism article does not seem to cover any content that can't adequately be addressed in this article. I fail to see how anti-atheism differentiates from Discrimination against atheists enough to warrant a separate article at this time. I also have concerns about the balance and POV of that article as it stands. I would take what relevant content exists in that article, NPOV it as necessary, and add in to this article as part of a new section on anti-atheism. If a good case can be made why we need a separate article on anti-atheism then we should work to fix then lack of content in the article and NPOV the current content. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Notcharliechaplin in merging the articles together, as there is a substantial difference between being an anti-atheist and being discriminatory of atheists. I believe this user wants to place their particular views in this subject and therefore is biased into considering both things the same. I believe there needs to be more information on the matter but this will come in due time. Julio P. 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Discrimination against atheists is really a subcategory of anti-atheism. You wouldn’t really discriminate against atheists if you where not anti-atheism. Now it is possible to be anti-atheist without discriminating against them so I see how the two things are not synonymous, though often related. After further consideration, maybe the best course is to include a section summarizing the discrimination article in the anti-atheism article with a link to it at the top of the section. The anti-atheists article needs lots of work to fix it up to a respectable state, none the less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcharliechaplin (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

✅ This seems really straightforward redundant topic. Open for a couple months, and the only user that has spoken against the merger has been indeffed. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Image at top
Hmm ... something strange going on. The file above here appears as it should, but when I load the page it pops up with the US in red. I went to the image commons page and tried to undo an edit there which added the red US, but that didn't seem to work ?? Vsmith (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

However, when I open an incognito page ... the image appears as it should. I guess my browser is remembering the previous ?? odd. Vsmith (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.newsclick.in/Lynching-Bharat-Called-Vaddh. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – Levivich 06:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

New section
Should the "Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.48.127 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't, and I'm going to explain it point by point, since you don't seem to be reading my edit summaries.

According to the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, the word lynching comes from an incident in the Bible where Jesus Christ told people to hit a woman with stones only if they had never committed any sin in their pasts. The RSS chief said that India had no such history as Indian culture taught peaceful co-existence.
 * This doesn't belong here, because it isn't about discrimination against atheists. It's about lynchings in India, and it's a comment made by a person who is not a recognised expert.

The first mob lynching in Bharat-Varsh happened on the 13th day of Kurukshetra War resulting in the death of Abhimanyu.
 * This also doesn't belong here. Quora is not a reliable source.

The most systematic “lynching” (or mob violence against an individual or individuals) in the mythologised history of India was that of India’s materialist philosopher Charvaka, as he was not just killed, but was demonised and his ideas distorted for generations. Charvaka was physically eliminated by a mob of servile brahmins because he could speak truth to power (so much for being called a “sweet talker” – a Charvaka!). The description of this is given in Mahabharata.
 * A blog post is not a relible source, and this is also WP:COPYVIO, as you appear to have copied it directly from the site.

A scholar of Sanskrit language and literature would say that “vaddh” means nothing but murder, but supposedly one done in pursuit of a noble cause. Thus, the killing of Kansa by Krishna is called “Kansa vaddh”. Or, the killing of Shambuka in the Hindu epic, Ramayana—who is a shudra scholar—is also referred to as “Shambuka vaddh”. Perhaps, it would be opportune here to look at Ramayana itself, where ‘vaddh’ is referred to many-a-times.
 * And finally, musings on Sanskrit etymologies have nothing to do with discrimination against atheists and are not encyclopedic.
 * Seriously, stop inserting this.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about New section
Should the "[Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.213.35 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No per my comments above. Material is badly-sourced, has wp:copyvio issues, and is unencyclopedic and off-topic. The author of this content has been trying to insert it into multiple articles. Pepper Beast   (talk)  11:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The author does nothing to clarify the relevance of these insertions in the articles where they are inserted. Also, the statement about the stoning of the adulterous is inaccurate: Jesus reportedly challenged only the first person to cast a stone to be without sin (making the point that not a one of us is perfect). Jzsj (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Not relevant information. --Thi (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Irrelevant, inaccurate, biased.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Someone963852 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No. This does not fit within the context of the article, though may be included within other, more appropriate articles. FULBERT (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing this discussion, as I believe we've had enough time and a clear consensus has been reached. Pepper Beast   (talk)  18:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * 1) Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists" Should the "Ancient India" section about “lynching” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?. 03:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Finally, one can be disruptive on the article talk page, and one of the signs would be a demonstrated inability to let things go. In other words, it's time to.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking for 3O after an RFC is completely backwards, as the RFC already gave upto 6O's at least. First off, the proposed subsection is in the "Present day" section. Ancient India doesn't co-exist with the present day. Secondly, "lynching" does not equate to "discriminating against atheists". Thirdly,
 * Mohan Bhagawat is not a recognised expert on ancient India or lynching or Jesus or language.
 * Quora isn't a reliable source. Abhimanyu wasn't lynched, he died in battle (breaking the ancient code of battle conduct doesn't amount to lynching). It's not a legitimate historical incident, it's just a story that may or may not be a romanticisation of something that actually happened.
 * Wellburrowed.com is not a reliable source. Charvaka is a philosophy that may be (but most likely is not) eponymous with its founder.
 * "Vaddh" is a neutral word for "to kill" and therefore doesn't equate to lynching. One person killing another (Krish-Kansh, Ram-Sudra) doesn't amount to lynching.

Update the map
The map showing which countries execute atheists is from 2013. It's been nearly a decade, the laws have likely changed. I am requesting that we make an updated map for 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flossingjonah (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Contents of this article make zero sense
The title of this article is "Discrimination against atheists", "Atheism" meaning "an absence of belief in the existence of deities", yet virtually all statistics in this article - specifically in relation to Islam and discrimination in Muslim countries - refer to heresy against the state religion; i.e., lack of faith in the state religion, not lack of faith in any religion. I don't see how apostasy laws are discriminatory against specifically atheists, unless we were to use an entirely different definition of "atheist".

It would be accurate to delete reference to Muslim countries wherein it is apostates against Islam itself; these are not examples of anti-atheist discrimination, including the map in the lede. Thoughts? Zilch-nada (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

to be rephrased content by IP editor (no source either)
in South Africa Atheism is being targeted based on their believes. in 2018 Christians targeted an Atheist because their are not Christian a shop in Cape Town they was sing that says Christians-only and other shops and Businesses public places that Atheist people are segregated. people killed 50% Atheists in Johannesburg 49% in Pretoria 77% in Durban and 97% in Cape Town. an christian organization protest against atheists with the slogan "God does exist" and police open fire on the protesters for looting and violence. Genuineditor (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps add a section for Oceania?
While this may not be a very big issue, could we please make a section for Oceania under Present day? This page obviously tries to include all areas of countries, but it is missing, at the very least, a paragraph on Oceania as a whole. Data Devourer (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)