Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 4

Reponse to Mann Jess
Jess wrote One problem detailed above is that the article is not about "a legitimate concept". LoveMonkey's response Atheist Julian Baggini says that it is. And then uses it. As does Phil Zuckerman  Do you have scholars or at least a scholar or source for your statement. Since the term has validity at best in order to remain WP:NPOV we can add it to the article as this criticism as of yet from you has no sources and is your opinion. Wikipedia is not your opinion it is about valid sources. 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jess wrote It's about a term, which is used to describe a number of varied concepts. Please see WP:NOTDICT, as it deals precisely with this issue. LoveMonkey's response That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Why can people whom read Zuckerman off of the Huffington Report see what he specifically says about term and then not see it reflected in this article in Wiki? PLEASE Post specifically here what in the article WP:NOTDICT you are talking about. As on one hand the side you are on is saying that there is no dictionary term "militant atheism" and that somehow Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can't have an encyclopedia article (which other encyclopedia have) because you can't find a dictionary article for the term. As if all of the sudden we have to start deleting articles like von Neumann paradox because people can't find that in a dictionary. , LoveMonkey (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, please don't copy/paste my comments (and signature) somewhere I didn't put them. I did not comment in this section up to now, and putting my sig here indicates otherwise. Further, these comments should have been posted in response to my words above, not set aside in its own section. That aside, you're missing the point. Please read WP:NOTDICT and then my words again. As I said, the article is about "a term which applies to a number of varied concepts", not one concept in particular. That is a violation of NOTDICT, as this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and as such we write about 'concepts', not 'terms'. If you're not going to read the policy pages that I'm linking, then I don't know how we can have a productive discussion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want people to response to your comments for clarity please post a better way to do that. As you are not listening to people and their points. So out of frustration for your behavior what are people supposed to do Jess? As such this is the only way I can see where I could directly address your comments. Second there is nothing in WP:NOTDICT that says that this article is illegitimate or invalid. I have read the article (please assume good faith your comments to other editors here do not reflect that) and there is nothing in WP:NOTDICT that states that a term with valid sources like other encyclopedias can not be here on Wikipedia.

As a matter of fact in the lead of that article it restates what I believe is the whole basis of this article..
 * Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.
 * As such your point is not valid as militant atheism is not being treated here as a word nor is the article about the Etymology of the concept, militant atheism. Here is ANOTHER valid source covering militant atheism's attack Islam, note this source states that militant atheism is an anti-idealogy. AND Ideologies and anti-ideologies are valid concepts to create an encyclopedia article around as one can see with such concepts as democracy for example. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that this article addresses multiple distinct concepts which are arbitrarily linked by a term (and thus, is a violation of WP:NOTDICT) has been clearly expounded by multiple editors above, and as such, I'm done rehashing that conversation with you. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Mann jess, hello! Please acknowledge the fact that User:LoveMonkey is trying to address the specific concerns you have with the article using reliable sources, etc., as you have requested in the closed discussion above. In fact, I will soon incorporate some of these sources into the article. Rather than trying to end the discussion with him, please address his concerns. From my perspective, it seems that he is trying to engage is dialogue with you. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If he's trying to engage me, then accusing me of "apologizing for mass murderers" is a poor way of doing it. If he has sources, he's welcome to present them without calling me a sociopath in the process. Further, until he's able to read and respond to my concerns, I have more productive things to do with my time than repeat myself endlessly. Sorry, but I'm here to be productive, not to debate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again people engage Jess on the talkpage, Jess rather than address their responses or concerns instead posts evasive dialog like the above, claiming they don't themselves have to address others concerns (as Jess appears to be attempting to marginalize those concerns) but wants their concerns addressed. Jess specifically earlier in talkpage discussion has made the declaration that people whom don't address his concerns in a way that he likes will have their responses and or stances on this article discarded, disregarded. Those kinds of comments and his off hand responses to comments I made in general, not just specifically to Jess, show a very clear lack of co-operation on Jess' part.


 * As Jess is pretty much saying he does not have time to do what Jess is asking other contributors here to do. As for his comments about my concerns about sociopath whatever, all he has to do is say that he has empathy for the victims of militant atheism and note that very simple fact, as of yet none of the editors opposing the article have done this. Which I think any person should find troubling and I also find troubling as well as a reoccurring component of this specific type of discussion. Why should people whom post valid sources stating clearly there were people MURDERED by followers of this concept, not to point out this concern? Jess is now not responding to the substance of my comments Jess is instead ignoring that and complaining about the style and how my responses have been presented and this is wasting time and engaging in logical fallacies. As the style over substance fallacy is not welcome and not productive to the Wikipedia project no valid point for anything on the project is based on a fallacy.


 * As "arbitrarily linked" is Jess' opinion and it is Jess' opinion about valid sources and how those valid sources use militant atheism. As Jess needs to post as many valid sources as he can find to validate that the other valid sources use the concept of militant atheism as a bunch of arbitrarily linked groups and events in history. You need to source as that is what has been said by the opposing editors on this article for as long as I have been contributing to this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. It is not required or appropriate for editors to express opinions (or empathy) about the article topic. Please constrain your comments to specific suggestions for article improvement. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should be merged with antitheism/antireligion
This article should be merged with the article on antitheism. Antitheism (the view that some or all religions are harmful to humans) can indeed motivate a person to violence if they get desperate enough, or if they don't mind accomplishing a good end (in their view) with evil means. Mere atheism (not seeing a good reason to believe in the existence of gods), however, cannot motivate anyone to do violence. Even strong atheism (the outright conviction that there are no gods) cannot motivate anyone to do violence... unless they simultaneously held the (clinically insane) opinion that correcting a bit of misinformation is a cause worth killing for.

Also, the article is (to say the least) inconsistent in it's use of the word "militant". It is used both to mean acts of violence as well as frank discussion among intellectuals. This is unacceptable.

EDIT: Changed the title from "antitheism" to "antitheism/antireligion".

Obhave (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have sources which equate the two terms? Right now we have a prevalence of sources which seem to use it in a different context than antitheism, and vice-versa. Ultimately, we need to go by what the sources say.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Mann jess. Every single source used in this article makes explicit reference to militant atheism. Even if User:Obhave did have sources that equated the two terms, applying them here would constitute a synthesis of information. As User:Lionelt mentioned above, the article passes WP:N and moreover, the information meets WP:RS and WP:V. On a side note, the term "antitheism" is not sufficient to encompass the content presented here anyways, since many of the religions and philosophies that were attacked, including Buddhism and Confucianism, were not theistic religions. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The two topics seem dissimilar enough to rate seperate articles. – Lionel (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single source in this article does make explicit reference to "militant atheism". But they aren't using it consistently, as if "militant atheism" were a concept in itself, instead of a contested descriptor-word modifying a contested philosophy, with both "militant" and "atheism" having many different meanings and connotations. Only part of this article could be merged into antitheism, and I'm not certain the rest merits its own article. Quigley (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you moved the anti-theist bits to antitheism and the new atheist bits to new atheism and the state atheist bits to state atheism you wouldn't have much of an article left. That's kind of what leads me to think this is a POV fork synth/coatrack. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uninformed. Might make sense if Chris Hitchens didn't voice militant atheist propaganda about the Russian Orthodox church even in light of what was done to the church..
 * "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it." LoveMonkey (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, antitheism may not be the most suitable of terms... but an important point still stands. How can we justify the equation of brutal violence with free academic discussion? This political cartoon demonstrates nicely the injustice and the double standard(s) that atheists have to deal with nowadays. But what can we do about it then? Since this page is supposed to be about the term "militant atheist" (rather than pointing out "real world examples" of militant atheists) perhaps the article should draw attention to the inconsistent use of the word "militant" lately? Obhave (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "militant antireligion" or "militant opposition to religion" then? Like I said earlier, no remotely sane person would apply violence to his/her opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in deities. However, the Soviet Union is a prime example of applying violence to the opinion that some or all religions are harmful. Ergo, the Soviet Union should be stated as an example of militant antireligion, rather than militant atheism. Obhave (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Militant Atheists is what they officially called themselves in Russia, it was the title of their organization that they committed mass murder and mass oppression for. I have already pointed out that people have played with the way the Society of the Godless as a official name is being translated into English from Russian. As they in literal translation are supposed to be called The Union of the Militant Atheist. Belligerent means drunk. It appears that its OK for atheists to make statements like 911 is an example of why religion is wrong but the mass murder against religious people committed by militant atheists calling themselves militant atheists is not acceptable and what they actually did is being defended and covered up by other atheists here is somehow a good thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Russian is variously translated in the literature. Paul Froese has it as "League of Militant Atheists", William Husband and Daniel Peris have it as "League of Militant Godless". The issue here is not whether or not the repression of religious people happened, but whether that fact should be discussed in umpteen different articles about the same thing. --Dannyno (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin
Since Kathy Griffin is one of the few people noted as a self-identified militant atheist in this article, I looked up the linked source (apparently only available on the wayback machine at this point). She says: "First of all, I am a complete militant atheist at this point. If you don't believe in God, [even though] you don't try to inflict your atheism on anyone, people get furious. And yet we have to listen to everybody's "God this" and "Jesus that." I'm sorry it bothers you that I don't believe in God. I don't care what you believe in. Whatever.:" Does this mean that a militant atheist is an atheist who doesn't care what other people believe in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll add that the paragraph on Politics: Today appears to be taken almost verbatim from the article http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Antitheism without attribution. In its Section on Further uses of the term Militant Athesist, Bookrags says "The Argentinian Supreme Court Judge Carmen Argibay apparently describes herself as a "militant atheist",[34] and the journalist and campaigner Paul Foot has been praised as a "militant atheist".[35] Comedian Kathy Griffin identifies herself as a militant atheist.[36]" with comments in the previous two paragraphs that "Figures in the 20th century in the USA and the UK who have been described as militant atheists include Joseph McCabe[24]and Michael Newdow.[25][26]" and "Kevin Drumm in the Washington Monthly applies the term to Polly Toynbee.[32]" Other bits and pieces from that article are used in this article also.Jkhwiki (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the other way around, the Bookrags page is in fact based on an earlier version of wikipedia's antitheism article. --Dannyno (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I just happened to come across this article by chance, so I wasn't aware of its history, not had I looked inside the antitheism discussion, but it makes sense now. Since I've already registered my concern about the current article, and I have no desire to try and edit it myself, I'll probably just withdraw from further discussion. Cheers.Jkhwiki (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

citation 16
In citation 16 one line is cited but if you read the article it appears to be the authors opinion that is cited not any demonstrable. This is from the article. "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster," says Dawkins. "But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable."

Their tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."" Note how the article talks about a confrontational tone after a rather relaxed section that is sedate. At other parts the author describes the work of a scientist as being a "passionate apostle of Darwinian evolutionary theory". This article seems to have a pretty oblivious and slanted bias. For that reason I think the quote and cite should be removed.Donhoraldo (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There seem to me to be problems with many of the citations in the article. For example, although I'm not sure of the standard form for Wikipedia citations, concerning the citations on atheism in the Soviet Union, refs [6], [23], [25], [28], [29], ascribed to J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte are in fact to an article by H. J. Berman in a volume edited by them, and another very similar article by Berman is cited in [5], [21], [27]. In some cases Berman is cited twice saying the same thing without it being made clear that Berman in the source in both citations. Furthermore these citations all seem to come from the same few pages of the two articles by Berman (and the quote from [25] is already included in the quote from [23]). This seems a very excessive reliance on one source, expert though he may be, and makes me doubt the balance and accuracy of this entry. By contrast, there seem to be some well-informed, balanced and factual articles on these topics elsewhere on Wikipedia.Jkhwiki (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blah. You're right. Now I'm even more confused. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further proposals
The controversy about the modern media use (or rather, gratuitous spamming) of the term "militant atheist" towards any atheist who claims his/her equal right to evangelize a worldview, should not be buried like it currently is.

Furthermore, there is a massive section dedicated to real crimes committed by people who disliked religion. Why on earth would we need a specific "Criticism" section then? Oh wait... the "Criticism" section is entirely devoted to criticizing the New Atheism movement.

I propose that the "Criticism" section be renamed "Criticism of the New Atheism movement" and that a new section named "Response to the modern use of 'militant atheist'" be created, where we can fairly cover the double standard in the way that the modern media employs the term. Obhave (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Humanism subsection is a criticism of atheism in the USSR, not New Atheism. However, I don't see how it's necessary given the content in the rest of the article. If, indeed, there is new content in that subsection, it could surely be integrated. I would suggest we remove that subsection, and rename criticism to "Criticism of New Atheism", which seems to be more descriptive. I'll boldly make that edit now.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at it now, this could also be collapsed in the New Atheism section above it, though I don't have time to do that now. I'd welcome others to do so, as lots of this info is probably redundant.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The heading "Criticism of New Atheism" is not a good choice. Individuals such as A.C. Grayling are not criticizing the New Atheism movement but rather, are criticizing the term "militant atheism." Furthermore, this article is not about New Atheism per se. The topic of criticism of New Atheism should be discussed in that article. This article should cover New Atheism as it relates to militant atheism. Moreover, deletion of the criticism of militant atheism in the USSR was not warranted. In light of these facts, I am restoring the previous version of the article. However, I am open to other suggestions, such as moving the criticism of militant atheism in the USSR to the section titled "Soviet Bloc." I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, criticism of the USSR should (if it is not redundant) be included in section on the USSR. When that is done, we're left only with criticism of New Atheism, as the term "militant atheism" is applied to it. Indeed, much of it is already covered in the New Atheism section, and so repeating it in a Criticism section directly below is unwarranted. I'm happy to incorporate the two, but largely, and per policy, we should all be working to integrate the criticisms into the article while we're working on the article's other issues.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the difference between the 'media' section and the 'general' section is that the former makes explicit reference to New Atheism or the New Atheist leaders. The latter section, on the other hand, references 'militant atheism' in general without associating it with New Atheism. I hope you can now see the difference. That being said, if we figure out another way to sort out the criticism, I won't object to moving the humanist criticism to the 'Soviet Bloc' section. I hope this helps and thanks for your efforts in trying to improve this article. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for those who deny that there's any controversy
Here's a few for starters. Now no one will be able to deny that the term is used gratuitously (to say the least) and that both it's use and meaning remain controversial to this day. If there will be no disambiguation page, at the very least there should be ample coverage of the heated controversy (from both sides) in the introduction.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistactivism/tp/YouMightBeMilitantAtheist.htm
 * About.com on the unfair use of the term:

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-are-atheists-always-described-as.html
 * Jeffrey Shallit on the unfair use of the term:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy
 * A.C. Grayling on the unfair use of the term:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism
 * Psychology Today publishes a critique of the term:

http://www.oliverburkeman.com/2011/04/on-militant-atheists/
 * Oliver Burkeman claims that the word "militant" is unhelpful, given it's association with violence:

Now that the obvious (perhaps not so obvious to non-atheists) has been demonstrated, we can finally begin.

Obhave (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of these personal and group blog sites do not count as reliable sources; the source by The Guardian has already been incorporated into the article. I will work on incorporating the blog post from Psychology Today, as well as some of the other sources, into the article later today. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that, since you are likely to present the sources unfavorably or bury them somewhere deep down in the article. Let's not screw around here... neither you, I, nor anyone else in this debate is "neutral". Both sides in a controversy should be heard from, and it wont do to have you writing for the "enemy". Obhave (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obhave, please assume good faith. If you don't like the way Anupam incorporates a source, you're always welcome to revert his edit. Assuming you'll dislike all his edits from the onset is unproductive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's correct, I could just revert his edit (although I have been advised not to revert anything in this article for a week, due to the edit-warring notice that was placed on me). However I stand by my point. We all have bias, especially on this very issue. Not only is it controversial who and what deserves the label "militant atheist"... it is, at it's core, a matter of subjective opinion. Obhave (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, the page that you linked to clearly states that statements of opinion are an entirely different matter. See statements of opinion and sources on themselves. Now please stop your repeated and disruptive wikilawyering. Are we going to respect the NPOV policy and build an article that presents both sides in this debate, or are we going to dick around and waste each other's time for months? Obhave (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "dick around and waste each other's time for months" – Lionel (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lionel, for pissing on Wikipedia policy. I'm sure the admins will be very pleased. Obhave (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * C'mon! It was funny! No self-respecting Wikipedian could've resisted making that crack. And besides, this page could use a bit of levity. It's so tense around here''. – Lionel (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually using the word "militant"...
If you insist on using that blasted word "militant", then at least be forthright and do it unabashedly. Let the word stand on it's own, with a proper link to the Wikipedia definition as Anupam recently provided. Don't try to broaden it's meaning, or rely on a nearby word thus discouraging people from actually looking at the modern definition of the word.

I propose that the introductory statement should read as follows: "Militant atheism is a term appled to atheism which is militant towards religion."

There. Now people will actually look at the definition of militant and be properly informed. And now the uninformed reader will be slightly less inclined to think that the New Atheism movement is clamoring for people to rise up and physically assault (or oppress by force of arms) innocent people.

So how about it? This could be the first step in a long journey to achieving any sort of NPOV consensus with this article. Obhave (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a wikilink to the word 'militant' in the definition as you've suggested. That being said, the article, in its introduction, does distinguish between its usage in historical events and its recent usage. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll bring in more sources demonstrating just how controversial the term "militant atheism" is. Since you are not an atheist yourself, you could be forgiven for not knowing just how widely, unfairly and hurtfully it is applied in today's world. After I've brought these sources to the talk page, we can all have another discussion on just what to do (and by the way the disambiguation split is definitely not off the table). Obhave (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obhave, I am an atheist. It is not wikipedia's job to protect atheists from "hurtful" terminology, especially if it is widely if unfairly used. It is wikipedia's job to explain concepts to its readers, and where controversy exists in the literature, to explain that with due regard for weighting.  The problem with this article is not that it is "hurtful", but because it is .  --Dannyno (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, I should have avoided the word "hurtful". Here's a rephrase then: "Militant atheist" is a slur, and all slurs on Wikipedia lead to a disambiguation page, or at least cover the word as a slur if it only has one clear meaning. Defining "militant atheist" as a serious thing and then applying it throughout the article is like doing the same with "nigger", "wetback", "FemiNazi" and "militant homosexual". Obhave (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you a source that compares the term militant atheism with nigger? – Lionel (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They're both slurs. You can't deny this. But I'm sure you will, since you're a militant anti-atheist (to use your own definition of the word "militant"). Obhave (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's accurately flesh out the disambiguation proposal
I'm not going to argue "split vs. no split" in this discussion, but rather to form a picture of what such a split would look like. Here's something to get us started.

Militant atheism (disambiguation):


 * Violent antireligion or antitheism. For example, the League of the Militant Atheist was an alternate name of the Society of the Godless, which were also proponents of state atheism.  [btw I don't speak Russian so I'm relying on other people's translation here]


 * A pejorative term applied to outspoken atheists, most notably the New Atheism movement. See also criticism of atheism and discrimination against atheists.

Please discuss, improve, post your own preferred versions, etc.

Obhave (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just modified my earlier post because I was sure that the current editors of this article don't want to lose all the hard work that they've put into criticizing atheism. So I added a link to criticism of atheism. In the interest of fairness, I also linked to discrimination of atheists. Obhave (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

1) "Militant atheist" as a pejorative slur and 2) the massive bias in groups following this article
A great deal of the sources simply refer to a common slur applied to people who dare voice an opinion that goes against tradition. "Militant atheist", "militant feminist" and "militant homosexual" all have tens of thousands of hits on Google... atheists are not the only victims of this pejorative. Also, I notice (on this talk page) that...

"This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Theology, Conservatism, Christianity, Anglicanism, Baptist, Catholicism, Eastern, Lutheranism, Methodism, Oriental, Seventh-day Adventist, Islam"

That's *quite* the coalition of religious groups. Small wonder that this article is, at it's core, a coat-rack around an anti-atheist slur. The Baggini definition in the lede is itself merely a use of this slur applied to people with A) a strongly held view about the universe and B) the view that religions are usually harmful (hitherto referred to as "antireligion"). I would also like to point out that antireligionists can have very compassionate motives, similar to the people that fought to inform the public of the harmfulness of smoking while still not wanting to ban or suppress anything or anyone. So there is nothing inherently "militant" about an antireligionist.

Here's what's wrong with the Baggini definition (which the entire article uses), in a nutshell:

1) It is ridiculous to put strong atheists under the same label as antireligionists. These are not the same thing, nor are they even similar things.

2) It is furthermore ridiculous to call either of them inherently "militant". "Militant" should be reserved for people who apply violence in their cause. The whole article makes it sound as if "militant atheists" are already halfway to applying violence, they just need to become "more militant" than they already are.

3) When discussing religious people, "militant" is indeed reserved for people who apply violence in their cause. One never hears a religious person being called "militant" merely for having strong faith or believing that atheism is harmful.

Anyway, I've been reading the Wikipedia guidelines and it seems that this article qualifies as an attack page. I'll submit such a request... we'll see if the administrators want to delete the article or if they prefer the disambiguation solution posted earlier. Also, if someone knows how to notify WikiProject: Atheism and other relevant groups that would be great.

EDIT: OK, the administrator did not agree that this page qualified as an attack page. Time to try the things covered in Dispute resolution then. I don't have time to do it right now though, I'll probably get to it tomorrow.

Obhave (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't qualify as an attack page. Also, whether or not the adjective "militant" actually applies to those being labeled is irrelevant; if they've been so labeled, and the label is notable, then it isn't our place to judge its accuracy. However, the current article is a coatrack, and in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The best course of action right now is to wait for the discussion on splitting the article to finish up, then either act on that consensus, or follow the steps outlined in WP:DR (namely posting an RfC). I am concerned about the number of brand new editors flocking to this page to vote, among other issues, and seeking outside opinions might prove helpful.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jess that the article is not a vio and or an attack page as the concept and or term "militant atheism" is in use by atheist academics these are including in the sourcing of the article already. As for Jess' comments on WP:Coatrack Jess has yet to post what part of Coatrack Jess is talking about. As for Jess' comment on WP:NOTDICT, Jess (from what I understand and admit I could be wrong) appears to be saying that no term, what so ever under any circumstance can have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. If something is a term then it can not be an encyclopedia article as terms are for dictionaries exclusively. That would mean terms like "French kiss" could not have Wiki articles. As Jess appears to be treating the concept of militant atheism as equivalent to terms like "new car". LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @LM I don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting me, but either way, please stop telling other people what I've said. Others can read for themselves what I've written, and see that it's absolutely nothing like what you've said above. If you are legitimately confused at my objection per NOTDICT, then you either haven't read NOTDICT fully, or you've had a problem understanding it which I cannot address. If the former, I'd urge you again to actually read it; we have two concepts linked by one term - NOTDICT explicitly deals with that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jess if a third party person reads your comments here I am sure they will see them as not clarifying but rather evasive. You did not clarify what was wrong with what I posted you also again spent allot of ink stating how you did not like the style of how I responded to you. You again have not posted specifically the passages FROM the article WP:NOTDICT (in ANY of your posting on the talkpage here for people to read) what the WP:NOTDICT says that you think makes this article invalid. As the comment you posted twice...
 * Jess wrote-"The fact that this article addresses multiple distinct concepts which are arbitrarily linked by a term (and thus, is a violation of WP:NOTDICT)"
 * Isn't actually from the WP:NOTDICT article and you know that. You also know that I am asking for what part of the actual article you are justifying your comments from and that by you not co-operating with my request you are attempting to frustrate people.
 * And now that I am trying to get you to do that again you stating that I am misunderstanding you but not HOW I am misunderstanding you. You then stated that you can not fix that without actually even trying. This appears to me as if you are asking for people to respond and collaborate with you but then you don't have to respond and collaborate with other people here. However your comments are here for people to read and see how you have evaded collaborating and or clarifying what your point is. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you won't read the whole policy, then focus on "Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary", specifically the last entry: "The same title for different things". I don't know how to be clearer, and frankly I have no interest in trying. Instead of rehashing the same discussion again, I'm going to leave this conversation and do something productive. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read the article and you are assuming bad faith in your comment. You want people to see your point but you will not clarify it. You have as of yet to also show the multiple definitions for the term as they exist in the article. I am trying to see how what one source calls militant atheism and what another calls militant atheism both did not hold a doctrine of atheism. Your not making any sense and are just dodging and evading now. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JimWae listed a number of distinct topics within his split proposal. Among them, he distinguished between state atheism and New Atheism. That these concepts share the topic of "atheism" is no more pertinent than that they share the topic of people or history; the two concepts are clearly separable. Placing them both in a single article is drawing a connection not found in our sources. In doing so, we have related Sam Harris's opposition to religious terrorism to the extermination of theists in the USSR, and we have implied that criticism of the latter is somehow applicable to the former. This is why we have policies like WP:SYN, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:COATRACK which govern our use of sources and limit our ability to combine them in ways which is not, itself, properly sourced. We need to go by what our reliable sources say, and we don't have quality sourcing showing a connection between these concepts. All we have are sources which use the same term to refer to both, which is explicitly what WP:NOTDICT warns against. All of this has already been said above.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's a step in the right direction. However I find the Coatrack essay to not be saying what your saying (again I could be wrong and apologize if so in advanced). I do not see the Not a Dictionary article saying what your saying either. For the Coatrack label to stick like you pointed out, the topics would have to not share a core atheist doctrine as each of the topics you have pointed out could (a potential not being acknowledged) have a militant element in it. That would mean that like in other articles (i.e. architects are for buildings, parks, roads and infrastructure) that the spectrum could be wide and also the scope. Right now the article (to me) reads as if it is pointing out the militant atheist element in the various types of atheist movements noted in it. That would mean it is not coatrack because the the differences are not big enough to say that the types are not enough related (share an atheist doctrine) and have not been documented to have militant atheism within them. All of this and some essays in general some have the potential to make things worse... Like this one -Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The things I've cited are policies, not essays. I understand you don't see WP:NOTDICT as opposing articles on two concepts linked by a term, or WP:COATRACK as opposing articles which use an article to hang criticism of a different subject. Unfortunately, that is what they're opposed to, and what they're frequently cited to avoid. Since I have no ability (or interest) in explaining wikipedia policy any more explicitly than the policy pages themselves, your disagreement puts us at the same impasse I pointed out days ago. As such, please move on. I won't be posting back in this section unless there's a really compelling reason.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK is an essay Jess. But fair enough. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Coatrack is, but it's based on WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE which are not. Anyway... All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why were my references removed?
I provided high-quality references which were then deleted. I'm sorry, Anupam, but you simply cannot authoritatively say in the intro what "militant atheism" actually is when there is a legitimate controversy going on in the world. I doesn't matter how many anti-atheist sources you dig up. Obhave (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, more of the same coming soon... too bad that I can't work on this full-time. Obhave (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Major changes to the article must be discussed here and consensus reached before you add them to the article. If you don't your work will be removed. Please see WP:BRD. To summarize: you have been Bold, you have been Reverted, now it's time to stop being disruptive and Discuss the changes you want to make. If an editor repeatedly reverts that is called edit warring and the editor will be blocked from editing. – Lionel (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Obhave, I understand that you are a new editor here and it is best to be civil and assume good faith. As User:Lionelt mentioned above, it is best to discuss proposed changes to the article, rather than making mass alterations to it. I did find your reference helpful and added it in the appropriate section of the article. As far as your copy/paste of the Merriam-Webster definition of "militant," Wikipedia is not a dictionary; I have however, added a link to the Wikipedia article for "militant" in the introduction. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See my post below. In reply to your comments, I'm sure you are both aware that when dealing with a highly controversial topics, both sides must be heard from. If Baggini (a relatively unknown philosopher with a tiny stub of an article) is allowed to soapbox with impunity in the intro, I don't see why Grayling (a much more notable philosopher) shouldn't be allowed to chime in as well. Banishing my first source, A.C. Grayling, to a remote corner of the article and cutting his statement down to a few words was unacceptable behavior.


 * I quote: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
 * -WP:NPOV


 * Obhave (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Obhave that A. C. Grayling is much more notable philosopher than Julian Baggini. A simple google hits check confirms this. (Julian Baggini has 200k, while Grayling has 650k). Right now I have added A. C. Grayling's views. But I suggest removing Julian Baggini's views, as we don't need so many views of various philosophers. -Abhishikt 02:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think that Grayling is a reputable philosopher and Baggini has his own individual perspective (as does Grayling), the "notability" of any philosopher (or scientist, or whatever) is not determined by how many google hits they have. A balanced article will take account of as many different reasonable views as possible.Jkhwiki (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest first read the article A. C. Grayling, specifically A._C._Grayling, then compare it with Julian Baggini article. If anyone does this, would rationally conclude that Grayling is much more notable, published, respected philosopher as compared to Baggini. As Grayling has more published work on this topic, his views would add value to the article.
 * There would be many more philosophers, each having their own individual perspective, so we should NOT go on listing each individual perspective. Wikipedia is not a place for such things. We should mention the view of the most notable expert of that field.  -Abhishikt 03:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A.C. Grayling's opinion was removed from the introduction because not only was it criticism of the term, but, was completely copied and pasted from the original reference, violating WP:COPYVIO. Unlike Grayling, Baggini, who is an atheist himself, does not take sides but explains the definition of the locution in a neutral manner. If you feel that Grayling's comments in the criticism section are not sufficient, I can expand them further. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COPYVIO mentions that 'brief quotation' can be used. I agree that the paragraph in the article was bit more than 'brief quotation', I would work editing that part tomorrow. But I was expecting that senior wikipedians like you should help editing the article not simply remove the content.


 * Assuming Baggini's version as neutral and Grayling's version as criticism is violation of WP:NPOV. You are bringing your POV in such decisions. -Abhishikt 03:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not my own point of view that Grayling is criticizing the term, it is evident from the title of the reference itself: 'How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously.' It is for this reason that the term is found in a newspaper interview, not a book on atheism. Baggini does not take sides as to whether militant atheism is bad or good, but simply delineates the concept of militant atheism. Another supporting reference, the Encyclopædia of Theology, provides a similar definition of militant atheism:
 * Moreover, I did not remove the information, as you alleged; I, on the other hand, properly rewrote the information and placed it in its appropriate section in the article, after forming a précis of the original copyright violation. I hope this helps. Dhanyavad, AnupamTalk 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest we use this source over Baggini's opinion. Given militant atheism only actually existed as a "doctrine" the Encyclopædia of Theology might be as good as it gets. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:ArtifexMayhem, that source is used to further buttress the initial sentence of the article. I also incorporated some information from that source that distinguished militant atheism from theoretical atheism in the introduction. What do you think? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Baggini's opinion should be removed from the lede and replaced with information from the definition above supported by the other sources: That militant atheism is a political doctrine used by political entities and not a "form" of atheism (atheism is not a religion). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that we would need to have reliable sources that support that proposition. The introductory paragraph, as of now, is verifiable and does distinguish militant atheism from atheism, in theory. I hope this helps. With regards, 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources you have cited support that proposition. Do they not? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Namaste Anupam. You are still using your biased POV and saying A.C. Grayling is critising, which is not the case. Grayling is just defining and explaining the term 'militant atheism'. And he is the notable expert in this area (as oppose to you and me), that's why his defination and explaination of this term should come in the lead para. -Abhishikt 06:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Namaste Abhishikt, if you insist of listing A.C. Grayling's definition of militant atheism, could you please list it in the form of "Militant atheism is XYZ" along with a source? I look forward to your reply. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jkhwiki. We should let both sides be heard. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Obhave (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, the fact that Baggini is an atheist himself make ZERO difference here. The current debate is not about the existence of gods! It is about whether atheists have a right to evangelize their worldview, whether they should evangelize their worldview, and how to label them if they do. Obhave (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term "militant atheism" as applied to contemporary atheists, I looked around for reliable sources that define it and had a hard time finding them. (Maybe they exist and I just didn't find them --- I don't know.) I also noticed that Baggini's book is in the semi-popular series of "Very Short Introductions", which is hardly a primary source. Moreover Baggini himself states that he's describing what he would call atheism that is militant --- perhaps that reflects a general use, but if so there should be several other reliable sources. The closest peer-reviewed article I could find on the topic was one I mentioned elsewhere: Philip Kitcher, Militant Modern Atheism, Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol. 28, No. 1, 2011. Unfortunately, Kitcher doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term; instead, he starts the paper with a one-paragraph summary of what he sees as the "manifesto" of Militant Modern Atheism:

In times when violence carried out in the name of religion abounds, when many groups of people seek to interfere with the private lives of others because those targeted are allegedly violating divine commands, and when important discoveries about the world in which we live are questioned, or even denied, because they are supposed to be incompatible with authentic messages from the deity, it is easy to think that things have gone too far. Polite respect for odd superstitions about mysterious beings and their incomprehensible workings might be appropriate so long as the misguided folk who subscribe to them do not seek to convert, coerce or eliminate outsiders, but, when the benighted believers invade the public sphere, it is important that they not be earnest. Further, respect should not extend to the deformations the faithful exert upon the minds of the young: just as children deserve to be protected against parents who refuse to allow them to receive medical attention, so too they are entitled to defence against forms of religious education that will infect and corrupt their abilities to think clearly and coherently.We no longer inhabit the arcadias of Waugh and Wodehouse, in which fanatic believers and their aggressive challengers who ask where Cain found a wife are equally figures of fun. Because of religious belief, our world is an oppressive and dangerous place, and it is time for those who value reason, justice, tolerance, and compassion to do something about it.

Not sure how you would condense that into a definition. Maybe other people will be more successful in finding reliable sources that define the term "militant atheism" as applied to contemporary atheists than I have been.Jkhwiki (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As Anupam had pointed out that the large section of A.C. Grayling's interview was WP:COPYVIO, I have rewritten the part and also included some more refs to support it.


 * refs -


 * 1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy
 * 2) http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/21/condemning-militant-atheists.htm
 * 3) http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
 * 4) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2BEZAAAAYAAJ&q=%22militant+atheism%22&dq=%22militant+atheism%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1800&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1900&as_brr=0#v=snippet&q=%22militant%20atheism%22&f=false
 * 5) http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism


 * Let me know if this is fine or needs any improvement -Abhishikt 07:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page is by far the best option IMO, but this is certainly an improvement to the current mess. Obhave (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All, Do we have consensus here? -Abhishikt 18:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We clearly do not have consensus for that as indicated by the RfC above. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What part of above suggested paragraph, you don't agree with? This is re-written as per your suggestion and it's all well sourced and from notable experts in this field. Please try to give constructive feedback. -Abhishikt 18:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who and what deserves the label "militant atheist"? Who gets to decide?
There's an ongoing NPOV fight over this article. Other issues on the table include WP:NOTDICT, WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK and WP:SYNTH. It was built by eleven religious WikiProjects as well as WikiProject: Conservatism, but was only recently followed by Wikiproject: Atheism. It has been suggested that the content of the article should be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 July 2011


 * LoveMonkey asked me to comment on my talk page. I haven't looked into this deeply, but as a fairly militant inclusionist, it seems straightforward to me that this is not a "coatrack" if one or more reliable sources describe any given historical movement as "militant atheism".  When sources disagree, of course, cite lots of them to delineate the nature of the disagreement.  I've stated my own opinions on NOTDICT on that policy's talk page; in short, I don't think it should be an issue unless we seriously think we can duplicate this entire article as one or more Wiktionary entries (in which case we should and then redirect to them, but I don't think it looks likely).  WP:SYNTH doesn't apply given careful wording to match the sources.  I'm not aware of the history of related articles to evaluate CFORK at this time.  The idea about prominently wikilinking to militant sounds good. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests for more editors to look at this page keep showing up on my watchlist, so here I am. I'm going to comment, but I'm not going to put this page on my watchlist, because life is short, so don't ask me. My, my, this discussion reminds me so much of the AfD discussions that erupt with the phases of the moon over pages like Criticism of Judaism or Christianity and violence. My view there is that if there are WP:RS using the term, the subject is notable. That principle holds true whether or not the subject matter pisses off religious people, or pisses off atheists, so I'm fine with keeping this page. About NOTDICT: the lead section of the page at this time is awful, and needs to be completely rewritten. A simple test for COATRACK: find sources—academic, scholarly ones, not somebody's blog or op-ed—that use the term "militant atheism" to describe both state atheism and new atheism. If such sources exist, then this should remain one page. If the only such existing sources deal with one or the other (state atheism but not new atheism, or new atheism but not state atheism), then the page must be split. Full stop. And as for whether the page is becoming a coatrack for bad things people say about atheism, the page needs to have both sides in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. It now has a section about critics of militant atheism. It needs to have another section, after it, about critics of those who use the phrase "militant atheism", RS that say the term is being used as a pejorative against atheists. A lot of the misplaced debate that is currently in the lead should, instead, be moved there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I moved this comment to here from higher in the talk, when I saw the RfC notice. I have not updated the comment to reflect edits since I first made it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit too stringent. If I were starting the article about beta blockers, I'd feel justified to make the article if I had a source saying propranolol was a beta blocker and another source saying that acebutolol was a beta blocker, even if neither source named the other substance.  There may well not be any single source that names every single substance from the Eucommia bark to the numbered experimental SR agent in a single place.  That shouldn't stop us. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wnt, that works fine for beta blockers, because the blood pressure is a lot lower there. Here, where editors really disagree, you will have endless cries of SYNTH unless you can show high-quality sourcing that treats both state atheism and new atheism as parts of a single subject. It isn't SYNTH to say that propranolol and acebutolol are both beta blockers. It may be SYNTH to say that state atheism and new atheism are parts of the same phenomenon. If I'm hearing you right, the editors arguing for a split may have a point. Those who oppose a split should be in a hurry to show sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, this page was created by a large anti-atheist coalition before Wikiproject Atheism was even notified.

The current article pushes the POV that it is bad for atheists to evangelize their worldview. It pushes the POV that the New Atheism movement is bad. It pushes the POV that A) criticizing religion and B) marching religious people into a gulag(!!!), are actually the same thing, just a matter of degree. WP:NOTDICT states: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by" (emphasis mine). This is why someone proposed a disambiguation page long ago... but the anti-atheist coalition stacked their votes against him/her. A disambiguation page would also address the content fork issue. Is it really necessary to have so many different articles dedicated to atrocities committed by atheists in the Soviet Union? Here's a list of the articles that treat the topic already:


 * State atheism
 * Criticism of atheism
 * Antireligion
 * Treatment of Christians in the Soviet Union
 * Treatment of Christians in Communist Bloc countries
 * Religion in the Soviet Union
 * Soviet anti-religious legislation
 * USSR anti-religious campaign (1917–1921)
 * USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928)
 * USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)
 * USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964)
 * USSR anti-religious campaign (1970s–1990)
 * Bezbozhnik
 * Society of the Godless
 * Terrible Triangle
 * Holy See-Soviet Union relations

This article is most notably a fork of Criticism of atheism, which does everything this article does only better, and without defining a fucking slur as truth and then applying it!! Having a serious article dedicated to "militant atheism" is like having an article dedicated to "coons", "wetbacks", "FemiNazis", "militant homosexuals" and so on.

All slurs on Wikipedia lead to a disambiguation page or, if the slur has one clear meaning, then at least the article will cover the term as a slur. This slur is no different. The current article defines anyone who evangelizes atheism as "militant". It defines anyone who criticizes religion as "militant". If we were to apply this ridiculous use of "militant" consistenly, everyone who evangelizes or criticizes anything would be "militant"! See also this political cartoon to get an idea of the double standard. Atheists barely have to open their mouth, while other groups have to use violence in order to be called "militant".

We have two options: A) Recognize this as a WP:CFORK of criticism of atheism and let "militant atheism" lead to a disambiguation page or B) actually construct an article similar to nigger, except this one would have to cover a more wide range of meanings. Obhave (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Obhave. This article has less to do with militant atheism than conflating atheism with antireligion and listing  antireligious intolerances.  Delete the damned thing and let the counterknowledge merchants vandalise somewhere else.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to bow out of this one. Obviously I don't understand the controversy - I am very surprised to see someone comparing "militant atheism" to ethnic slurs; I wouldn't have even thought of it as an insult.  As long as the content ends up somewhere the name just isn't that important to me. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it isn't clear enough from discussion elsewhere, I agree with splitting or merging this article into the plethora of others we have on the topic. If this information is already in those articles, then it should be deleted. Alternatively, I would support keeping this article, but moving a good deal of the content in it (such as that on New Atheism) elsewhere, but I think that approach is less than ideal. If we keep the article, it should be focused on the term, and how the term's usage is notable, and delegate content regarding the actions of supposed militant atheists to the appropriate articles, summarizing them only briefly if at all. I agree with JimWae, Trypto, Obhave, and the plethora of others who've said this is a CFORK / POVFORK / COATRACK, a violation of NOTDICT for conflating two distinct concepts, a violation of SYNTH for drawing conclusions about the topic not explicitly contained in any individual source, and so forth. There's lots of solutions... but the current article just doesn't cut it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I would chime in on the fact, that this same RfC was held a couple of days ago where many users, like yourself, User:Wnt, agreed with your assessment. This article is not a coatrack but simply lists different manifestations of a single, well-defined concept. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So the oppression and murder of theists in the USSR in the mid 1900s is the same concept as a couple authors who recently wrote books condemning terrorism? Do we have any sources which draw that connection? Or, are we combining sources for each of those concepts to draw our own connections? (BTW, the split discussion was not an RfC) &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are once again distorting the position of New Atheism and setting up a straw man; the reference titled "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter", clearly states:
 * The several references in the introduction define militant atheism as an "atheistic hostility to religion." Both the policies of the Soviet Union and the New Atheists fall under this well defined concept of militant atheism. Should you need more clarifying, consider reading the references thoroughly before commenting again. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked if we had any sources which draw a connection between New Atheism and the oppression and murder of theists in the USSR in the mid 1900s. The ref you provided does no such thing. I'll have to take that to mean we don't have a source connecting these two distinct concepts, and instead we're drawing our own connections from separate sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We do need a source that connects the two. Does anybody have one? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV dispute tag??? Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME??????????
Diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439304125&oldid=439303853

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439306187&oldid=439305595

There are some SERIOUSLY unscrupulous people working on this article, but I never expected anyone to stoop this low...

Obhave (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And again (see below)... considering there's an ongoing RfC regarding neutrality, this really needs to be added back in.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I support that the NPOV dispute tag needs to be added, this article is far from neutral. -Abhishikt 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the NPOV tag for the article. -Abhishikt 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obhave: using all capitals in this manner is considered screaming and is strongly discouraged. Please edit the section title so it is in compliance with talk page policy.– Lionel (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Atheist fundamentalism"?
We need to hammer this out properly as changes are being repeatedly reverted. Reference to this phrase has been justified on the grounds that a single source has defined it as "hostility to religion", and that therefore it is synonymous with "militant atheism", which is also defined as "hostility to religion". But "militant atheism" is not actually here defined as "hostility to religion" at all (however inadequate the definition actually is), and nor is it so defined by any of the sources (dubiously) relied upon for that definition. How, then, can "atheist fundamentalism"'s inclusion in the lede be justified? See: WP:UNDUE, WP: SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP: OR --Dannyno (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither source defines "fundamentalist atheism". The *Watson* source is a clearly hostile review of The God Delusion and it does not define "fundamentalist atheism" as "hostility to religion", it just says hostility to religion "marks him [Dawkins] out as "a fundamentalist atheist"". The other source just says both terms have been applied. This is what happens when articles are about what terms REFER TO. Even frogs are sometimes referred to as reptiles (instead of amphibians) --JimWae (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice its a formulation used in Conservapedia . --Dannyno (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion and Dumping Quotes..., it appears we have strong consensus to not conflate "atheist fundamentalism" to this topic. The discussion has been open for 2 weeks and garnished substantial support, with only one editor opposing. I agree with that consensus - being a "fundamental atheist" does not make one militant, we don't have adequate sourcing conflating the two, and combining them in this way appears to be WP:SYNTH. As such, I'll go ahead and make the change. (I already had earlier, but was reverted by Anupam on the grounds that he and JimWae had discussed it and agreed it would stay. As that is not the case, I'll be reinstituting my change).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noting that it was reverted. Again.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is unbelivable... this article is about the term militant atheism, bad enough as that is (WP:NOTDICT). But now they want to widen the potential for coatrackery even more? So now anyone who uses "militant atheist" and "atheist fundamentalist" can be included in the article? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.


 * Also, since (apparently) "militant" and "fundamentalist" are synonyms, should we do the same for Christians? Anyone who believes something very strongly is "militant"? Yeah... no. I'm removing the references to "atheist fundamentalism" in the lede. If you want to make an actual article on that particular term, you're welcome to it.


 * Obhave (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Placed a reference version of the current lead on a talk-draft page.
Talk:Militant_atheism/2011JUL13-LeadDrafting contains a reference version of the current lead with the sources broken out for reference and comparison. Please have a look. Feedback is desired. So this baby seal walks into a club. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Artifex! That actually is helpful for me as I'm reviewing the lead. I'm sure once I get the time I'll be able to go through and verify each of the refs a little more easily now! :) All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic, but I can't completely keep my mouth shut, so I guess that makes me a militant atheist. :) My suggestion (for anyone who cares, and the fewer still who might agree) is that if this article should exist, the definition should be as neutral as possible while being consistent with the sources. Just as an example: "Militiant Atheism is the belief that religion is not only false but harmful and should be publically challenged wherever possible." The problem with definitions like "Militant Atheism is atheism that is hostile and intolerant toward religion" is that they assume exactly the perjorative sense of "militant" that's in dispute. You could then have a section on Criticisms of Militant Atheism (it's intolerant, doesn't give proper weight to the social aspects of religion, intolerence of religion in the Soviet Union led to dreadful consequences etc. etc.) and a section on Criticisms of the use of the term (Grayling comments etc. etc.). In my opinion, none of the historical information belongs in this article. If I wanted to know about the League of Militant Atheist, I'd go to what seems like a very well-researched and informative article on the Society of the Godless that already exists on Wikipedia. I would not come here. There is no point in trying to reproduce that information, and other historical facts, in this article in a vastly less reliable form. Finally, if people are identified as Miltant Atheists, there should be sources that show they are really Militant Atheists in the sense defined by the article. I think (almost) everyone would agree that it's just silly to even mention Kathy Griffin.Jkhwiki (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in thread Talk:Militant_atheism you are mistaking and violating WP:NPOV in assuming that A.C.Grayling's views/comments on 'militant atheism' are criticism of the term. It is not criticism, it is just explaination of what the term is. Grayling is the notable expert in this area (as oppose to you and me), so his explaination of the term should come in LEDE. -Abhishikt 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Abhishikt, to whom are you speaking? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was addressing that to User:Jkhwiki -Abhishikt 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to replace introduction of article
I propose the introductory paragraphs of the article be struck and replaced with —


 * Militant atheism is terminology applied predominantly to Marxist Leninist appropriation of atheism as a socialist ideological weapon against competing ideologies, but also to any proponent of atheism as cause for or against ends other than atheism.

The existing wording of the article supports no other summary. The assertions in the very first sentence are not a summary of what follows, suggesting an attempt at pre-empting what is known and can be evidenced about militant atheism.

The reference to Baggini is clearly prefaced by him with an acknowledgement that it is a personal interpretation, not a scholarly and verified theory or accepted norm.

The Rahner citation is inaccessible to me as a matter of IP blocking. Any reference to him as anything other than a theologian is equally elusive, which makes him a partisan in the atheism/faith divide. Please cite verbatim passages to prove me wrong.

Zuckerman is talking about Marxism Leninism.

Fenggang Yang is commenting on Chinese communist manifestations of atheist militancy, ergo Marxism Leninism departures again.

Any assertion that countering assumptions made by belief systems predicated on deism is equivalent to militant atheism logically implies that any stated atheism is equivalent to militancy. This is plainly absurd.

Please, no discussion without suggestions for alternatives to support existing or alternative wording in the article.

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Well put Mr. Strempel. Here are some alternate links for the current citations. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This summary doesn't reflect the most important points of the article, e.g. it says nothing about New atheism. – Lionel (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is becoming pedantic, Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Exchange the word socialist with capitalist and you have everyone from Anton LaVey to Ayn Rand. This appears to again to deny the whole position defined by the Eastern Orthodox church... Again..
 * ""-- Russian emigres who established our Church fled not socialism but godlessness, militant atheism and persecution. The people who run Venezuela today are not the Soviet state. President Chavez may be a socialist, yes. But he is not an atheist. Moreover, he openly calls himself a believer, does not persecute the Church and does not propagandize atheism. Venezuela today finds itself in a profound social crisis, and something must be done, so I lean towards sympathizing with him. It is not the Church’s lot to involve itself in politics or decide which is better, socialism or capitalism. The Savior commanded us to tend to our neighbor, to help the poor and orphaned. Christianity is not alien to the concept of social justice—unless it is harnessed to godlessness. At the same time, many of our parishioners have a justifiable mistrust of socialists, which is characteristic for ROCOR. Orthodox Christians in Latin America are very politicized, and that’s the way it always was. For instance, during Allende’s time, they fled Chile en masse."

LoveMonkey (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. You're saying "if you change some of the words, it applies to more people". How is that relevant? No one proposed that we change 'socialist' to 'capitalist'. How does the Eastern Orthodox church have anything to do with our definition of militant atheism?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Militant atheism is terminology applied predominantly to Marxist Leninist appropriation of atheism as a socialist ideological weapon against competing ideologies,"
 * That is to imply that militant atheists are of a Marxist Leninist socialist idealogy.

Ayn Rand has been called a militant atheist by more than just one source. ,. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support better wording than our current lead. However, I would suggest changing the second bit to be more in-line with sources. We don't currently have any which use such a broad definition. I think this is an acceptable improvement, but the second part is not ideal. I don't have a new proposal off-hand, but could probably come up with one if you need.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the first part of the sentence, but preferably remove the word "socialism" so that the wielder of the "ideological weapon" becomes Marxist-Leninism instead.


 * As for New Atheism, I think the article should mention that the term has indeed been applied to the New Atheism movement, then link to the New Atheism page and let that page speak for itself. All the material on this page that criticizes the New Atheist movement I would be happy to see moved over to that article under a section called "criticism of the New Atheist movement" (which the current article lacks btw). That way we actually have a proper, tight definition of militant atheism to work with in this article, while also avoiding a content fork for criticism of the New Atheism movement.


 * Covering the New Atheism movement here pushes the POV that they are militant (i.e. extremists)... calling them militant on the New Atheism page, however, states that they have been called militant by sources XYZ.


 * Obhave (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The introductory paragraph is fine the way it is, summarizing the many uses of the term concisely. Furthermore, many readers have heard the term applied to the New Atheist movement exclusively. A link to the article on New Atheism in this one would be beneficial, in conjunction with a condensed reason why their position has led some to apply the term "militant" to them. Finally, covering an application of the term to that movement does not push the POV that they are so (at least not merely by stating "X has been called Y" like this one does), especially when the coverage includes rebuttals by individuals involved. Turnsalso (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Turnsalso's reasoning here.ClassArm (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources relating militant atheism with the New Atheism movement?
The terms militant atheist and atheist fundamentalist, have been used to criticize the New Atheism movement.

None of these sources say that the terms are used to criticize the New Atheism movement. (and when did atheist fundamentalist and militant atheist become synonymous?) Do we have any reliable sources that state a relationship between militant atheism and the New Atheism movement exists? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 12 here: Militant_atheism. – Lionel (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is actually implied in every one of those statements that the term is used in a manner that is critical of those that it defines. However, I agree that the sources do not say this outright.Griswaldo (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we do not have sources for "atheist fundamentalist" being a synonym, and we have consensus in Dumping quotes... and Atheist fundamentalism to remove the term per WP:SYNTH. But, my attempts to act on that consensus were reverted without discussion. It's also worth noting that it was repeatedly reverted without discussion even 2 weeks ago when those discussions were taking place, as noted in both sections by Dannyno. As for sourcing, the first and third sources don't talk about "militant atheism", and the second rejects the term. All 3 need to go. The 2nd one can go into the "criticism of the term" section.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As another editor stated "Dumping quotes from sources that happen to use a term does not make an encyclopedia article." - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we request formal mediation
There have been repeated (unannounced) attempts to remove the NPOV dispute tag. Yes. The tag that says: "please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"...

We have known for a long time that there are some pretty unscrupulous people working on this article... but I never would have thought that experienced Wikipedians would stoop to such disregard for policy, despite ideological differences. Therefor, it seems that our only real option is to request formal mediation (the next step in dispute resolution). What do the rest of you say?

Regarding the diffs... there were two 12 surreptitious attempts by user: Anupam and the third one 3 was by user: Turnsalso, who I suspect is a sock puppet. Does anyone know how the sock puppet investigation/reporting procedure works?

Obhave (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Avoid making accusations of sock-puppetry unless you have substantial evidence and, if you do, approach me through different channels.
 * As for the page itself, things are under control. They're not perfect, but some progress is being made. I've already ensured that no more reversions or unwarranted removals will be made. m.o.p  14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit was made as a revert to a previous form which had not only been found to pass NPOV at the time, but also restored unexplained excisions from the article by User:Mann Jess. I say this not to attempt to counter what User:Master of Puppets said, but instead to speak up against accusations of sock puppetry. I will admit that I may have gone too far in removing the NPOV tag, however. Turnsalso (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Turnsalso You reverted my edits because they were "undiscussed". I've tried discussing them with you above, but you have not replied. Can you please participate in that discussion? Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam's revert of the CNN reference
I removed this from the intro: "...who share a belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

And commented: "Let the New Atheism page speak for itself... the CNN quote is available there in a more neutral form and context"

Anupam then reverted this, and commented: "rv - new atheism needs to be defined here as a criticism is presented on it"

May I remind you, Anupam, that this is not a definition... this is CNN's commentary of what the "policy" of the New Atheism movement is. This is a matter of opinion, as the New Atheism movement is not a centralized organization with a fixed policy.

Once again, you are discouraging the uninformed reader from clicking on other articles and studying matters for themselves.

Obhave (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried attributing CNN instead. User: Lionelt reverted the change and said "attribution unnecessary--if you feel strongly about this--let's talk about it"... and then he makes no attempts to talk about it. Obhave (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to agree with Obhave. Why do we need to define the term here, particularly using only one source?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Defining terms in the lede is common practice. Summarizing the section in the article in the lede is also common practice. This definition of the term, or as Obhave refers to it, "commentary", seems congruent with the section, further down, "New Atheism." Obhave, we don't delete sourced content, even "commentary", just because you don't like it. WP is not censored. This article is about militant atheism: and that's what we're going to write about. Do you have a rationale for your position based on policy that you can succinctly explain to us? – Lionel (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And what reasons do you have against actually attributing CNN for their opinion? Anything? Anything other than your militant anti-atheism, that is? Obhave (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, this isn't productive. Please concentrate on the article and not each other. I don't think it's necessary to define the term in this case. While it may occur on other articles regularly, it is also fairly regular that we don't define every single term that we link in other instances, so that's certainly not a policy-based argument either. The description we're providing seems to be rather one-dimensional, and IMO doesn't entirely convey the New Atheism article (which, itself, needs expanding). I like the wording just saying "New Atheism movement", as it's succinct, and doesn't suffer from that problem. So, again, is there a specific reason we're defining it, and if so, why are we only quoting from one source?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is important to define the New Atheism movement because it is being related to militant atheism here. Apart from CNN, do you have another source that defines New Atheism? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest look at the first couple of sentences from the New Atheism article, and it's sources. I copied the same for you here.
 * "New Atheism refers to a 21st century movement in atheism. The term, which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of Wired magazine, is applied, sometimes pejoratively, to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period 2004–2008" -Abhishikt 07:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source used in the first sentence of that article does not indicate the position of New Atheism. Moreover, the introduction of that article also uses the same CNN reference to define it. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Anupam, you want an actual definition? OK here's the definition of militant that's actually in use in the sources of this article.


 * "Anyone who criticizes anything is militant"


 * We should be consistent with our terms!! Therefor, in light of this wonderful use of the word "militant" that the article uses, we should continue applying it. Anyone who criticizes atheism is a "militant anti-atheist". And hey, since Baggini defines anyone who evangelizes atheism as militant, OBVIOUSLY we should define all christian missionaries, clergy members and everyday evangelists as "militant Christians". Great, let's roll with this definition... anyone who criticizes or evangelizes anything is "militant". Obhave (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Anupam No, that quote doesn't indicate the "position of New Atheism", but it does define the "movement" of New Atheism, and it's the movement we're defining. I don't know what the "position of New Atheism" is. Further, while the CNN article is quoted in that article, it isn't used as a definition. In every source I can find, I see a common thread of defining "the New Atheist movement" as a series of books written by a short list of authors. Even the New Atheism article places emphasis there, citing some of the same sources. Those sources include Wired, Stegner's Article, The New Atheism (Stegner, p11), Tom Flynn, even response books, such as The Truth Behind the New Atheism (David Marshall, p9). So once again, why are we quoting from only 1 source?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, the more sources I track down, the more I'm finding agreement per above. Especially given that the majority of this article discusses the oppression and murder of religious people historically, using a single source to quote "New Atheists believe religion shouldn't be tolerated" is implying a connection for which we have no source. This is a neutrality issue, and as such, I'm removing the quote until we can come up with better wording. If you feel some clarification is necessary, I'll propose "...to describe the leaders of the New Atheism movement, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens." I don't think this clarification is necessary, but it's the best we have per our sourcing.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This may be a valid compromise, as it mentions by name founding members of the movement, all fairly well-known names, whose views are well-known as well. This too, however, might serve only as an invitation to remove the criticism section below it by those who perceive it as being slanderous to the individuals named. Perhaps something more akin to "the New Atheism movement, whose constituent literature makes the case that religion 'should not simply..." etc., or "...and Christopher Hitchens, whose literature asserts that religion 'should not simply..." etc. A quote from such literature may be helpful instead as well if a third-party quote would draw too many objections. Turnsalso (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found other scholarly source that describe the New Atheism movement in these terms and have added them into the article. The first reference it titled "Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1" which states:
 * The second reference is titled "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter", which states:
 * These sources both support what the CNN statement says. Per WP:RS and WP:V the information is appropriate for inclusion within the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No. You've provided 2 sources, one of which says nothing of tolerance. The other makes a passing reference. This is not sufficient to implicitly conflate the oppression and murder of religious people in the USSR with New Atheism, which is what we are doing when we speak of that oppression, and then say only "New Atheists think religion should not be tolerated". This is a neutrality concern, not an editorial one. My compromise of listing the authors (to whom the term has widely been applied, as recorded by a plethora of sources) is neutral and avoids that problem. What, exactly, is the problem with using that wording? &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Anupam You undid all my changes to the article, as well as removing the neutrality tag, without providing any reason for doing so in edit summaries or discussion. I was explicit in my edit summaries as to why each change was made. In doing so, you've reintroduced unsourced and incorrect content into the article. I'm going to undo your revert given that you've provided no explanation. If you have a problem with individual changes, please handle them individually, and discuss the reason for your opposition here first. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with that assessment, then look at a website for New Atheism yourself, which states that it is self-characterized by:


 * This statement supports exactly what the CNN reference is getting at. You stated the problem yourself. Before presenting New Atheism as relating to militant atheism, we must first define its characteristics. If we do not, then one might assume that New Atheism advocates the same thing that the Soviet Union militant atheists did. I do not mind listing the authors; you, however, made multiple edits that prevented me from undoing that single edit. I do, however, think that a better place to mention them is under the New Atheism section, where they have already been listed. Adding them in the introduction, in my opinion, is not necessary since New Atheism includes more than just those authors and a plethora of supporters; as such, IMO it is best to define the locution in the introduction. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not undo all of the changes you made to the article as you have incorrectly stated. Please re-read my edit summaries. You removed several references to the word 'atheist fundamentalist' which User:JimWae and I had already compromised on above. Originally, the word was even included in bold face in the first sentence of the introduction. You then proceeded to remove multiple references from the article, which was not a good idea because many of these claims are contentious. I did restore several of your edits in the article - please see those edits. For example, I readded your statement from "Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith" and restored your removal of the "usage guide" edit. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I wasn't aware of an ongoing discussion regarding 'atheist fundamentalist'. I'll participate there, and we can undo its removal for the time being. Mentioning that in your edit summaries would have been helpful. You mentioned nothing in edit summaries except that my edits were "unexplained", which is untrue. I also kept in the CNN wording for now. 2) newatheism.org is hardly a reliable source. 3) the current wording implies that new atheists advocate the same thing as the "militant atheists" in the USSR, in that you've mentioned the latter, and then only said about the former that they're "intolerant". That is the problem with the current wording. Removing it doesn't share that problem. I'm still not seeing a problem with simply listing the authors to which the term applies, and that seems to coincide with our sourcing as of yet.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hang on... when you said JimWae and you compromised on the use of "atheist fundamentalist" above, were you referring to the two conversations 2 weeks ago, Dumping quotes... and Atheist fundamentalism, where every editor who weighed in objected to their use except you? That is all I can find on this page. If I'm missing something, please show me.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Mann jess, yes, there was a discussion held above. User:JimWae made the compromise edit here which moved the term from the first sentence to the section on New Atheism, to which the term is often applied. I did not contest this edit. Thank you for allowing the reversion of that information. I did not endorse inserting newatheism.org into the article but specifically listed it as a "self-published" source above in order to further buttress the CNN source. The current wording does not imply that the New Atheists advocate the same thing as militant atheists and once again, this is evidenced by the following clause: "Recently both the term militant atheist and the term atheist fundamentalist,[15][16][17][18] have been used..." I would also request that you please revert back to the previous version as you removed multiple references from the article, which was not agreed upon. It is beneficial to have multiple references to support a statement in the article. Moreover, as I did state in my edit summary, it was not helpful to remove the second Berman reference, which was published under a different publisher altogether. I would appreciate if you could restore the previous version and we can discuss your proposed changes together. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a compromise. That's JimWae partially acting on the consensus above, which clearly indicates that "atheist fundamentalism" is not to be used as a synonym of "militant atheism", and that sources using one should not be applied to the other. When you said there was a discussion and compromise, I took you at your word and reverted my addition... I actually felt a bit embarrassed for not seeing the discussion before I made my changes. Since there was no such discussion or compromise, I'm going to act on consensus formed above and re-remove the bits on "atheist fundamentalism". I'll make a note in those discussions of my reasons as well.
 * Regarding sourcing, I'm not aware of any major references I removed outright. I removed a whole bunch of duplicate references which were copy/pasted throughout the article. I also removed a ref to Witte which used Berman as his primary source of data (and nearly identical prose to boot), since citing Berman and sources derived from Berman is redundant. There were also some concerning "atheist fundamentalism" and the like which I removed (and will now re-remove), which are just disparaging remarks about atheism generally, and don't concern the article. Can you point me to a place I explicitly removed a reference not already present in the article? If so, I can either explain or revert it. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a compromise. As you admit, you did not read the discussions or look at the edit history of the article which delineated its final location. Reliable sources indicate that the terms 'militant atheist' and 'atheist fundamentalist' are applied to the New Atheists and therefore the term merits inclusion in the article. If it does not, then per WP:N, a new article will be created. You removed several references from the article. It is acceptable for a reference to be used more than once in an article if it supports a statement. Per WP:V, it is actually mandated that each sentence is supported by reliable sources. This is a contentious topic and the more references we have per statement, the better. This will ensure that at least the content of the article is not contested. Also, it is not for you to decide which references are acceptable. It is acceptable to use different academic journals that used Berman's information because they are reliable sources that are published under different academic publishing companies. I request you to please reinstate the material you deleted from the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You completely misunderstood my reply. I thought I had not read the discussion, because you told me editors here already agreed to include "atheist fundamentalist" material, and I hadn't read anything like that. I took you at your word, and undid my edit, thinking "oh, man, that's embarrassing. I should have been more diligent checking the talk page". Come to find out, no such thing ever happened. I had read the relevant discussion already, which was a landslide of editors opposing inclusion of the material, opposed only by you. If you disagree with consensus, you're welcome to provide new sourcing or arguments above. You're also welcome to create a new article if it meets WP:N, but I'd strongly suggest that the term "atheist fundamentalist" does not.
 * Regarding sourcing, I'd ask again that you provide a specific example. The diff that removed them and the titles removed would be helpful.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You chose to delete references and are now asking to point out the difference? Simply look at your revert here, and look at the original Soviet Bloc section, specifically the words "deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions." You will notice seven references that support this statement, which I, like the rest of the section, mostly authored. After your mass deletion, there were only five references there. Why? All of the references following that statement supported it. Please reinstate the reliable sources that were originally there as I had them. You must first gain consensus before removing those references as well as a large quantity of information from the article, such as the source from the BioLogos Foundation. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, specific diffs and titles would be helpful. However, it appears you're looking at reference 9 and 10 of this version: "Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R." and "Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide." Both are still present in the article. Richmond is still ref 10, and Simon is now ref 30. No deletion of content took place... just removal of duplicate info. The BioLogos cite (I assume you mean #16 in the original diff) is to a blog representing the personal views of a non-notable non-expert. That does not qualify as a reliable source, and citing it 3 times in multiple paragraphs is undue weight. I explained this in edit summaries. I'll also point you to WP:OWN. Please work collaboratively with other editors. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that right now we have a couple editors supporting the change from the CNN def for New Atheism, and I believe for solid policy-based reasons. I've left out that change since you kept reverting edits to the lead, but you haven't addressed my proposal recently. I'm not going to act on it for a bit longer to allow further discussion, but I'd point out it's that change to which this section is devoted, so if you have further contentions with other changes, then formulating your thoughts and posting to a new section may be most appropriate, so topics don't get jumbled. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad you admit to unilaterally deleting those references despite the fact that they supported the aforementioned assertion. "Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R." states: "Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities." Why would you delete that reference when it supports the sentence which precedes it? Similarly, "Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide." supports the sentence as well as it states: "Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite." I would appreciate if you could please restore those references immediately. If not, then I will restore them. A reference can be used more than once in an article, mind you. The Biologos Foundations deals with matters on religion and science and Ian H. Hutchinson is professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is as qualified to speak on the issue as Richard Dawkins, who is a biologist, is. That is not your decision, however; I will point you to WP:RS which states: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I would advise that you revert your edit as you have not gained consensus to remove it. Once again, if you do not restore it, then I will. I would also point you to WP:OWN. You have not contributed to most of the content in the article and insist on making unilateral edits without discussion. Also, at this point there is no consensus on removing CNN and other supporting references. I suggest you allow other editors to comment. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, they were not deleted. They're all still there in that very section. Is there some reason we desperately need 7 refs for a single uncontested statement? Putting so many refs places improper emphasis on certain content, adds weight concerns if the content is being cited multiple times, makes the page more unweidly and difficult to edit, and so on, just to name a few issues. Why is 5 refs not sufficient for that sentence? Considering the number of reverts you've made today, I'd suggest working collaboratively, detailing specifically why you believe we need to duplicate these refs to pile on to that sentence, and trying to garnish support for the proposal; edit warring is not productive.

Regarding the BioLogos cite, Ian Hutchinson is not a "professional journalist or a professional in the field on which he's writing", and the video blog of a non-notable non-expert is not a reliable source, indeed per the exact passage of WP:RS you quoted. If you disagree, you're welcome to inquire as WP:RSN for a broader opinion. Lastly, I'm not sure you understand WP:OWN; that I've admittedly not contributed most of the article content is precisely why it wouldn't apply to me. You, on the other hand, are still making statements implying that your previous contributions to the article entitle you to a larger say. That is simply not true. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "right now we have a couple editors supporting the change" -- and don't forget about the couple of editors who oppose the change. – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, all the other editors LEFT because you and Anupam are impossible to work with. You revert EVERY single move that has been made. Not a SINGLE step has been taken in making the article comply with NPOV policy. Obhave (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Lionel Right now the only editor who's stated opposition to the compromise is Anupam. Even so, ultimately, this isn't a vote, and unless there's a compelling reason, neutrality concerns will have to be addressed, but if you have another proposal for doing so, you're welcome to chime in.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Voicing support for the keeping of the CNN reference. One could link to the article on New Atheism as a q.v.-like statement in order to clarify the movement's beginning or source, however the CNN reference presents an over-arching attitude of the constituent literature of the movement and therefore links why it is applied, justly or not, to the New Atheist movement. Concerning BioLogos, I am seeing lack of concensus for removal of the reference, especially since it offers additional, reasoned clarification from an individual with similar qualifications to the movement's leading proponents on the definition of the terms applied here. I will go through with a revert until the issue is settled, for either point or against. Turnsalso (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also reverted un-discussed edits, which one would like to be discussed in detail on the talk page. Turnsalso (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My take is that we can keep the CNN reference and if we at all need definiation of 'New Atheists' in this section, then it should come from first 2 or 3 sentenses of that article. Taking definition directly from source can be biased, that's why we discuss so much on LEDE. -Abhishikt 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummmm....
 * Reality check:
 * The Biologos Foundation is an advocacy group: "BioLogos explores, promotes, and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith." — About The BioLogos Foundation, BioLogos.
 * Ian H. Hutchinson is a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Full stop.
 * Richard Dawkins is a biologist(evolutionary), ethologist, author, outspoken atheist and prominent critic of religion that is often labeled a New Atheist.
 * The video correction video(or explanatory text), Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists, is not a reliable source on the topic and it cannot be used here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The video correction video(or explanatory text), Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists, is not a reliable source on the topic and it cannot be used here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No one cited the video. The text surrounding it was used in the citation. The BioLogos Foundation can be used as a reliable source. According to WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." New Atheism concerns itself with religion and science and therefore, Hutchinson, being a scientist, is qualified to write on the subject of New Atheism, which is why his entry was published in The BioLogos Foundation website in the first place. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The BioLogos Foundation is not a news outlet. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nor is New Atheism within the field of science. Nor is an professor of engineering a professional in that field.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jess: regarding "Right now the only editor who's stated opposition to the compromise is Anupam," what compromise are you referring to? For the record, I have already voiced support to retain the CNN source. – Lionel (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I said that a while ago. You responded before the compromise was proposed. Since being proposed, Anupam was the only one to oppose it. To reiterate, we have a multitute of sources which define "New Atheism" as pertaining specifically to the writings of a short list of authors. The New Atheism article additionally defines the 'movement' in that way. Our article deals exclusively with those authors when discussing New Atheism, and all our related sources address them by name. On the other hand, we have 1 reference from CNN which defines New Atheism as a position of "intolerance to religion". Quoting from that reference immediately before and after discussing the oppression and murder of religionists in the USSR provides a very real implication that "intolerance" means something different than the CNN author intended, particularly when we're already describing it as "militant". This is a neutrality issue. There is no reason I can see that we've picked out one reference of a boatload of others to cite when it has such a neutrality issue. Per discussion here, I proposed the compromise that sidesteps that issue by simply listing the names of the authors to whom we're addressing. That compromise has received some support. The only opposition I've heard was from Anupam that "the CNN quote is acceptable". I don't find that to be a compelling argument.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And, we have another addition and revert reintroducing Biologos into the article. Anupam, this is getting tendentious. The biologos ref has been discussed, and consensus appears to support removing it. Anupam's edit summary was "rv - does not have to qualify as an RS to be a part of the external links section; please see WP:ELMAYBE". According to ELMAYBE, such links can be provided if they "contain information from a knowledgeable source". Biologos is a Christian advocacy group, the link is a blog, and the author is a non-notable non-expert in an entirely unrelated field. This simply does not qualify, and that's been pointed out numerous times above. I'll remind you of m.o.p's section below... please stop reverting nearly every change to the article without discussion. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop pointing to a consensus that does not exist. User:Abhishikt, and User:ArtifexMayhem are the only users that oppose the link. User:Lionelt supported its inclusion and User:Turnsalso even reverted you when you removed it, along with your other mass deletions in the article. I am surprised that you accuse me on being tendentious despite the fact that I pursued the proper avenue for this issue at WP:RSN, rather than edit war, as you have done. I am awaiting on the response there which will determine whether it can stay in the article as a reference, not as an external link. Moreover, I did not even re-add the reference to the article but added the link as an external link, which is something completely separate. The same new user that reverted me placed an link to a polemical TED talk by Richard Dawkins and reworded the article to state that God's nonexistence is a fact, not a belief, which is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, the reason User:Abhishikt reverted me was because he felt that it constituted a "site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," which constitutes advocacy of a particular viewpoint (see User:Abhishikt's unjustified appeal to WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2). By the way, User:MasterofPuppets' section was interpreted to be addressed to you. Please assume good faith and take the time to reflect on what you have posted to me in light of the above. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As BioLogos is not a recognized authority on this topic consensus is irrelevant. Also, by my reading of the edit summary Abhishikt edited the words of the source article because the "reference clearly states - "mere fact that there isn’t a god" and was in fact supporting WP:NPOV. MasterofPuppets can best interpret his own remarks. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that that is what the reference originally said. However, User:Abhishikt stated that he changed the word "belief to fact" because "that word degrades the meaning of the sentence." If you want to quote the reference, then I request that you please add quotation marks around the remark. If the words are not in quotes then that statement is advocacy and violates WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than pander to middle school bickering, I'm going to keep things short and bulleted. 1) Consensus is not a vote. Biologos violates policy as a RS and guideline as an EL, which represent broad consensus throughout the community. Your "number of editors" is incorrect, but even if it weren't, consensus still opposes inclusion. 2) Thank you for taking it to RSN, like I asked you to. 3) Please stop throwing around unfounded accusations and interpreting other user's words outside of what they've said. Other editors can read the discussion for themselves. 4) Abhishikt reverted because of WP:ELNO #2 and #11. To represent his revert as only #2 is intentionally disingenuous.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment and there is no consensus as there were a number of editors who disagreed with your removal of the source. Also, consensus is not a vote. I have taken the source to WP:RSN on my own accord and am awaiting a reply from them, which will determine the final outcome, which I will respect. I understand you're new here on Wikipedia. As a result, with regards to your last comment, please see WP:NPA. Thanks for your understanding in this matter, AnupamTalk 07:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You're welcome to disagree, I suppose, as long as you're not edit warring over consensus again. 2) Nothing I've said qualifies as WP:PA. 3) I'm not new.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I was never edit warring. I introduced for the first time, an external link which was previously a reference. It is currently being evaluated at WP:RSN. I hope this helps. Cheers, AnupamTalk 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

BioLogos is in no way a reliable source, nor are they neutral enough to merit a position as an external link. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)