Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 6

Is "MA" a Hoax to begin with? Inherent structural/molecular flaw in this article, throughout.
In a nutshell:

Militant atheism (MA) is merely a de facto POV neologism, despite the early references, which are basically fraudulently interpreted as establishing MA as a unified category. It is not was not a unified concept until evangelizing fundamentalists concocted it was a slogan.


 * The references of a supposed unified concept MA is built out of passing use of an (adjective+ a noun), cleverly now proposed as a unified pronoun "Militant Atheism".


 * Examples: (1) Foote
 * Example: Kohut
 * Note: Both were materialists and used the terminology in a manner quite opposed to the current evangelists who use it as a perjorative. To the extent that they may rely upon googlable citations of earlyuse of adjective+noun, they would be committing an intellectual fraud and a hoax.


 * They even hypostasize it as if the abstract analytical concept were itself a living entity, an evil personage which "compelled" the Communist Party of China.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (This is clearly possible a set up job by fundamentalist POV warriors to establish a POV fiction that evil is incarnate in the form of Militant Atheism=Satan, a childish and superstitious concept rejected by most contemporary theologicans. )

Edit conflic:t Anapum/Jess; Third opinion oon "toxic to humans"
I am pretty much a disinterest third party in that I have received blistering reversions from both of these editors and I have an opinion on the current edit conflict between them. Incidentally, I have no clue who exactly is who or what is what and furthermore the nature of this dispute is such that my opinion is assuredly NPOV for this reason: it is unclear whether the contested remark is such an overstatement that it will make the party who said it look bad. Thus both atheists and religionists should put aside their POV agendas and accept this opinion at face value.

- 	 	+
 * RE: "toxic to human life"
 * VIEW: that is such a harsh choice of words that it will probably antagonize religious evangelists et al. On the other hand, it is so blunt that "militant" (adjective) persons who evangelize atheism (if anybody really does, these days) might benefit from such a frank, unapologetic and blunt statement.
 * THUS: we have no right to use those words UNLESS they were used by one of the sources which are legitimately mainstream vis a vis the faction they are purported to represent. In other words, if Hitchens or Dawkins used that terminology, it can go in mainspace. Otherwise, it is [{WP:OR]] on steroids, aka putting words in people's mouths. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS and WP:V, I used that clause to characterize their common belief. The references for the statement can be found in my suggestion for the "Introduction." Do you have another way to describe these individuals, that is supported by reliable sources that connect them with the term militant atheism? If so, I am open to suggestions. Please offer them here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The important thing is never to unilaterally impose a description always make clear "according to" so and so...and don't label them unless they self-identify. Otherwise, the hook is in...Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Have you read WP:SECONDARY, which states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."? I look forward to your comments. That being said, I've revised my suggestion for the "Introduction" to excise the phrase in question. We can add in a description that is agreed upon, after the introduction is agreed upon. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When using characterizations of anyone and anything by their critics, or supporters, readers benefit when the POV of the source is apparent. One of the deceptions being deliberately pushed on this issue is that statements of POV sources is asserted in mainspace as if written on golden tablets or written in stone, and the fact that some hack self-ordained website owner made this statement somewhere is used as "source". Meanwhile, they shut down Atheism 3.0 claiming that PhD's published by major New York publishing houses were not reliable sources...this is a propaganda entente from evangelists...note the creeping Medieval realism as well...
 * You'd actually be surprised. I authored the Atheism 3.0 article and voted to keep it. On the other hand, the individuals who opined the deletion the article identify themselves as atheists, not to suggest that there is any correlation there. To quote Phædrus, "Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many." Cheers, AnupamTalk 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Result of investigation

 * (Written before Anapum's remarks were viewed)
 * When I wrote the above I was just looking at the edit summs and diffs and as you know it is difficult to distinguish footnotes from mainspace text. Upon a FIND search on the word "toxic" I determined that the coinage was a hyperbolic caricature of New Atheist views. As such, it should not be stated in mainspace unless it is clearly identified as a characterization by an opponent of atheists; also, there would be a heightened notability requirement on that kind of incendiary rhetoric. Demagogue? Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede has prominent POV distortion . Notice of Intent to Edit.
The word "pernicious" is attributed to the "MilitantAtheists" however there is no citation that any atheist philosopher has ever anywhere in any context used the term "pernicious". There is a relatively obscure videoblogger named Jonathan Miller who attributed that viewpoint to one specific Nobel laureate he was lucky enought to interview. It is not nice to put words in people's mouths when they grant interviews. To put words into the mouths not only of Dr. Weinberg, the Nobel Laureate who was apparently subject to this false light defamation but also to tar Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with this same brush is tantamount to a subtle [{W:BLP]] violation. In any case, it is clearly not supported by the citation, it is a violation of [{WP:NPOV]] and is also WP:OR and [{WP:SYN]] but, worse, it is falsification, i.e., not even good Original Research/Synthesis. It is simply a highly perjorative word plucked from the thesaurus by somebody named Jonathan Miller,pasted on the web over the interview of Dr. Weinberg, and now, via this WP article, attributed, en masse, to an entire class of persons deemed "militant".

I am not saying that this is a deliberate distortion, but the net result is a gross POV distortion. Please cite notable atheists using this term "pernicious". The term is, despite the concatenation of citations, not itself cited. It does not belong in the lead and is revertable on sight. This notice is strictly a courtesy.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Further research on "pernicious"
Apparently Miller is getting his cue from "Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed" By Kerry Walters who attributes this term "pernicious" to Weinberg. But this is not a word from any cited atheist sort. Weinberg himself says "harmful". I am currently reviewing the entire video - OK, it just finished - based on one listening session of the entire Weinberg-Miller interview, Weinberg does not use the word pernicious a single time. (He uses the word "corrosive" with respect to Science, but that is of course irrlevant.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=eHOtkVFCKscC&pg=PA12&dq=militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=KCwiTu2FDoL2tgOXmLRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=militant%20atheism&f=false

But this is just POV of Kerry Waters putting words in [{Stephen Weinberg]]'s mouth. This might be almost a WP:BLP violationg, implicitly. It is offensive.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google research
Google search so far negative no corrolation to the word pernicious with relevant terms.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another POV distortion error: Baggini was an atheist
The text cites Baggini as though he was an anti-Atheist correctly characterizing the whole lot of atheists but apparently he was an atheist who constructed a straw man of an extreme atheist who never existed so he could distance atheism from the kind of extremism. But here we are now presenting this phantasm as though it was the exemplar of atheist militancy...

According to an anti-atheism writer!Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=eHOtkVFCKscC&pg=PA12&dq=militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=KCwiTu2FDoL2tgOXmLRD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=militant%20atheism&f=false Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Word razor on hold
Dear all. Without recanting a word I've said here about verifiability or my perception about the need to remove unverified assertions from the article, I must put my announced intentions on hold indefinitely.

This is a direct result of a serious discussion elsewhere on verifiability, deliberate content forking to avoid discussion, and the apparent contradictions between the verifiability principle and guidelines commonly interpreted by administrators as justification to maintain articles and/or content despite the apparent absence of credible sources.

Until I have gained some clarity on whether the latitude to be given to unverified content is so broad as to make it reasonable for me to regard Wikipedia as a blog rather than as a serious attempt at creating an encyclopaedia, I don't think it is reasonable for me to act in what is clearly regarded as a controversial manner.

Should someone else here wish to pursue the word razor arguments in my absence, feel free to do so without reference to me. But if the editors here wish to ignore I ever made the word razor argument, feel free to do that as well.

In terms of the discussion conducted elsewhere that I referred to above, should Wikipedia administrators demonstrate to me that my interpretation of the verifiability principle was always mistaken, I intend to retire from active participation in Wikipedia altogether. Should the outcome affirm my understanding of the verifiability principle, and the stated rules against content forking to avoid controversial debate, I may return to this debate, but I anticipate that this might not occur for some time. The process of seeking clarification at Wikipedia is not an easy or quick one, and requires significant time and effort that cannot, therefore, be spent on articles.

This post is a courtesy explanation of why I will not act on my own timetable for the word razor cuts.

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Long strecth from 1890's to 2009 please clarify
Regarding this edit  This reference In no way supports the spurious assertion that a “term” ([MA] has “been used going baci to at least 1894.

This reference is an unsupported opinion asserted by someone named Ken McFarland apparently in 2009. That is quite a stretch! Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source seems only to support the idea that the term exists, but not that it goes back to the 1890s. As such, I've removed it. We may be able to use that source elsewhere in the article, but it clearly doesn't back up that statement.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 7
quite shady

Charles Colson saying "one scholar..blah blah..." is really just Charles Colsons' very POV POV. And it is cited to support an entirely different statement. Quite loopy.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Without identifying who that scholar is, it's not up to what ought to be the standards for an article about a sensitive term--JimWae (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to be arguing that Nietzsche was a political activist !?!--JimWae (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also agree. On top of that, we're not talking about Nietzsche, and he doesn't explicitly say anything about the term "militant atheism". It's actually been bugging me for a while. I've removed the source, per these comments.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is nice that the editing on this article has moved from highly contentious edit warring to a mutually respectful tone of colleagues. But I hope we aren't losing the word razor guy, it seems that he has a fairly honed sense of how to go about things which is being somewhat under appreciated. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

'militant atheism' and doctrine
'atheism' or 'militant atheism' is not a doctrine or does not have a doctrine. The given reference of this does not associate doctrine with 'militant atheism'. Please provide WP:RS for use of word 'doctrine' in lede sentence "Atheism is classified as "militant atheism" when if it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated". Else we would need to re-write it. Abhishikt (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is highly problematic because it is taking one very precisely (or narrowly, depending on your POV) defined perspective, Jesuitical, and announcing it as an encyclopedic truth as though it was the classification of botanicals or the formula for the acceleration of spaceship. In reality, it is the officious pronouncemnt of a Jesuit scholar whose job it is to lampoon intellectually those whom he can no longer legally have burnt at the stake. As such, it is a trenchantly POV bit of mumbo jumbo.


 * The corrective would be to spell out explicity, according to Fr. R______, a Jesuit theologician...and that is being generous because really in that piece of writing he is not doing theology, he is generating propaganda. And I do have good friends who are RC theologians, and I deeply respect many. But this hatchet job on atheists is not a theos+ology at all...Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the time being identification of this as RC is a minor but helpful step toward truth but


 * (1) is his writing under a nihil obstat and


 * (2) is his writing actually classified as RC Theology per se or is is merely dicta


 * (3) is he certified to teach RC Theology or only lesser topics and


 * (4) most importantly, why is an isolated Jesuit, or at least why is the Roman Catholic gloss on the issue receiving such prominence in the article. It may be justified but it was my impression that the more notable propagators of the "militant atheism" taxonomy were the fundamentalists. It would be quite helpful if anyone can clarify these point.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "militant atheism" as a doctrine, there are sources which have described it this way. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why keep readers in the dark?
This edit deprives readers of a useful frame of reference of who is who and what is what.

Whether or not people want to have WP be clear about its sources or not, the edit itself is not justified by the edit comment.

This is becuase the edit comment misrepresents the edit, which removes identification of the person being cited.

The edit summerary inaccurately objects to a "list". There is no "list" at all, there is merely a brief, one or two word, identification of who the cited source.

This is so that readers will have some sense of what the POV they are dealing with is all about.

It seems that your edit is not helping in this particular instance.

I don't think it is a good precedent and I don't think either "side" of the a/theism debate benefits by the deletion of attribution. If the person being cited is a Jesuit, or if they are an avowed atheist, is pertinent and useful.

Perhaps you would explain your rationale? As it stands, you merely object to a "list" as though this was a matter of irrelevant clutter,. It is not irrelevant clutter.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On second reading, you actually are taking my suggestion but...
OK so you are agreeing that rather than a mere name, which means nothing to readers, you are OK with "theologican Rahner" and "philosopher What's Her Name".


 * I think I noted somewhere that I could live with "Jesuit theologian" although I wrote "Jesuit writer". But I think you are doing a disservice if you prevail with identifying Rahner merely as a theologian and resist identifying him as a Roman Catholic theologian.


 * I don't think that believers are benefited by obscuring the affiliation because between RC and Protestants there is often a huge gulf in opinion. Similarly it is useful information to know "Lutheran theologican" as I believe Karl Barth is often identified and "Protestant theologian Paul Tillich" is often identified. If you think that "Jesuit" raises red flags, I would go along with "Roman Catholic theologian" but IMHO you are not helping the reader by having them guess.


 * As for this woman, it seems that she is from a very POV religious publisher which is frankly religious and what is the big problem with the reader knowing this?

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is not necessary to state the religious position of every writer in this article. If their work is published in a reliable source, their professional career is enough. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic link, what is the point of this link?
RESOLVED ✅ [Inserted DH] The link is Off topic. The article is not about censorship of science. To the contrary!  The article is not about this, at all. Could you explain your logic?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the following reference states:
 * As such, the link rightly belongs in the "Further Reading" section. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK fine, good answer, and thank you for your gracious reception of criticism.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Cheers, AnupamTalk 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the EDIT NOTICE: No major shift w/o consensus
COPIED TO TALK PAGE OF Abhishikt

I reverted a substantial edit made without consensus. Just because four people in a contested process were able to for the time being prevent a poorly-documented (2 refs) article about a topic (Aeth 3.0) from its own freestanding article does not give you the right to unilaterally obliterate all mention of any author in that tradition, particularly under this kind of edit warning. Please do not do this again, thank you very much. Cheers.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Offer of reconsideration

 * This is a substantial edit because you are removing content. As far as I can seem all of the other recent edits have been limited to at most a few words or maybe adding no more than a couple sentences which are pertinent to existing content. Whenever you remove content, that is a big deal. However you gave two separate reasonings, the first of which I have pointed out is a misapplication of [{WP:NOTABILITY]] as a license for erasing a published Harvard author on the flimsy basis that a related, botched article failed an afd. You know better than that so I will Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. However, your second rationale appears to be worthy of discussion and you may win me over if there is a misapplication a critique of scientism....Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Openers:
 * Bruce Schneidman is not necessarily "not notable"
 * Even if he is not notable for article purposes does not mean he is a member of an blacklisted atheist authors list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Devilish I understand that you feel strongly about this "Atheism 3.0" thing, but please realize that, until we have sources which appropriately document the topic, the community has determined that it is non-notable. Trying to put the content in a smattering of "atheism related" articles, and edit warring on this article to keep it in, are not ways to get your information presented. There are two problems with this content. #1 is that the community has decided the concept is non-notable, and #2 is that the ref doesn't discuss "militant atheism". I'm removing the content per these concerns. If you have sources which somehow link this content to the topic of the article, feel free to present them here and we can discuss it. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With that said, I'll note that you are correct that Bruce Schneidman is not necessarily "not notable". The community has determined that "Atheism 3.0" is as of now, however, so mention of it would have to go. We could leave in the rest, except for concern #2, which squarely places the content as unrelated to this article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally off base. Just because a free standing article failed an afd does not permit you to blacklist all reference to the topic. Also, I finally got ahold of the old failed article which had only two refs; my writing on the topic has more refs than that. But this is beside the point. You can't censor all reference to Aetheism 3.0 just because the article failed. You should know better than to make such an outlandishly incorrect statement, I think you may be the one who is excessively wrapped up in that issue.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User Mann jess, I do not mind if you remove reference to Atheism 3.0 but the content of the paragraph is indeed relevant. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be permissible to remove a reference to A 3.0 iff it is not relevant but not on the basis that its failure to pass afd as a freestanding article constitutes a warrant to delete all mention of it on WP. But removal of longstanding content without discussion was open & shut, um, error, as was the expungement of mention of Bruce.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally have no problem with reference to Atheism 3.0 being reinstated. It is okay with me if you reinstate it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Devilishlyhandsome, Anupam and all; if you don't mind I would like to copy-paste the reasons I have given for removal of that sentence - "1. Bruce Sheiman or Atheism 3.0 is not notable 2. The sourced book criticizes "scientism" and not 'militant atheism' for "belief that science is capable of determining the existence of God".
 * It seems some people never read the second reason I have given. The sourced book nowhere mentions anything which is in the article. The statement in the article is attributed to 'scientism' in that book. This makes it clear that the sentence is totally baseless. This is the reason I thought there is no reason to get consensus about a sentence, which is not supported by source.
 * So assuming my second reason is also read, do we have consensus for removal of that sentence? Abhishikt (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated before, I do not support the removal of the content. The term "scientism" is not used in the reference. It actually makes explicit reference to the term "militant atheist":
 * As a result of this finding, the content should continue to remain in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh... Now I see it. My bad in not finding this line earlier. I think the current sentence wordings are changed from the source. There is a big difference between determining existence and nonexistence of god. So I propose following line, which is very much according to the source.
 * Do we have consensus for this sentence? Abhishikt (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus for this sentence? Abhishikt (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Before plowing through all of this (don't get me wrong I am rather long winded myself) I would like to thank you for your very cordial reception of a revert. And your detailed response.


 * However, regarding:
 * It seems some people never read the second reason I have given.
 * Two points:
 * Had the first rationale not been so contentious and, IMHO, incorrect, we would have gotten to the second one...                )
 * Had Jess not jumped in to continue to whip the dead, irrelevant horse which your first rationale revived into contention, time might have been saved.
 * That's all for now. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because a source uses the words "militant atheism" doesn't make it appropriate for the article. There are numerous problems with this source. Among them, I'm not convinced of its notability, and providing a criticism of scientism from one author without first even discussing scientism is undue. Most importantly, this book was written in 2007, and is being used to supplement content on the USSR in the mid 1900s. Sheehan is quite clearly not referring to Soviet atheism in his book, though this placement makes it appear as though he is. If this content is included in the article at all, it needs to be moved to a new section, and contextualized appropriately.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In view of "Militant atheists are scientific materialists who believe that science will someday explain all of reality and that there is no need to resort to supernatural agents. The denounce religion as “superstition” and continue to think that humanity will one day “outgrow” it. "
 * I think the proposed sentence is flawed as follows
 * Bare identification of the author as an atheist would be a violation of Anapamu's objection, my objections to which I hope he is in the process of considering, but from my perspective should be refined. (No this has nothing to do with...anything aside from that) the reader would be better served by being put on notice that the author is affiliated or identified with an emergent conciliatory trend within atheism. But aside from this (relatively minor) point, my more substantive objection is as follows.
 * It seems that the salient point is not pertaining to the question of science's capacity to fix the (non)existence of a Creator or Omniscient Controller but rather - with respect to this article - the issue of the fact that they "denounce religion as 'superstition and...[so forth]Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another issue with this sentence:Bruce Sheiman, himself an atheist, thinks that militant atheist are incorrect in asserting that science is capable of determining the non-existence of God.
 * He's a very smart man and that strikes me as a terribly dumb thing for him to be saying and as such not at all typical or notable as a sample. I don't think that Dawkins or Hitchens or the rest of them really believe that nor do I think that kind of cartoonish straw man is typical of the author. How does he think "MA" philosophers think this is to be proven? A pap smear? Carbon dating? It doesn't pass the smell test. Just, MyHonestOpinion.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Identification of the author as an 'atheist' is the change that Anupam has currently done the article. The other part of "who believe that science will someday explain all of reality and that there is no need to resort to supernatural agents. The denounce religion as “superstition” and continue to think that humanity will one day “outgrow” it" is mostly what Sheiman thinks 'Militant Atheists' should do. This will not be a value-add to this article.
 * And I agree with Mann_jess that it is WP:UNDUE for Sheiman, but I am okay to compromise on mentioning a single sentence as per my proposal. Do you agree with my proposal or want to offer any improvement suggestion? Abhishikt (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is that this author has important point to make on the article topic and has an influential recent book with an entire chapter devoted to "Militant Atheism". However, I could be persuaded that it is perhaps WP:UNDUE to quote his view on Russian ideology, but at this point I don't see that his in point remark is so terrible. Maybe put his name in a footnote for the SOviet section, but include some mention of him perhaps toward the end of the article maybe in the section on critical comments about militant atheism, which is where his WP:,s>UN DUE weight belongs? Why don't you guys go ahead and put something in mainspace and if I have modifications we can look at the modification options. I would be nothing but honored if you implement any of the foregoing, but if something else emerges I willletcha know my critique, if any.

Thanks.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made the change to make the sentence according to the source. Abhishikt (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's undue, then a single sentence would still be undue. As I implied above, I might be okay mentioning this elsewhere in the article if it's properly contextualized, and it's shown to be the proper weight, but Sheiman is currently being quoted on Soviet atheism, a topic to which he never spoke and is clearly a non-expert. Even putting it elsewhere would have to be justified, which no one has even attempted quite yet. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I had previously moved this sentence to criticism section, which looks appropriate, but it was opposed/reverted by Anupam. Abhishikt (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why such resistance to this writer. He is chaplain at Harvard University. Wasn't his book published by a University Press? His work was cited in an influential article by Relgion News Service which was run in major newspapers such as the Washington Post and spawned a detente between atheists and evangelists. So he is expert on the topic of atheism - in fact, a notable, verifiable reference on the topic of atheism. So in an interdisciplinary discussion of Soviet atheism, his area of expertise is the second half of the forumulation Soviet+atheism. Similarly, a specialist in Sovietology may have observations regarding Soviet atheism. But such a specialist probably will not be an expert on atheism per se. So I don't get it, what is the beef?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Untranslated foreign language citations ???


This tells us nothing. This is en.wikipedia.org

There is no way to ascertain the veracity of this reference.

Many of us read French, German, Spanish but Czech? WHat % of en.WP editors read Czech.

What if someone wants to modify this using Russian text?

Seems like we need to insist on at least some verifiable reliable English language citations.

In this case, it seems the editor at the least owes us a rough translation by someone or other even if it is in part machine translated.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has been apprised of this content which is not consistent with policy due to lack of citation by this editor and another seasoned editor of this artice. Another editor has now complained in edit comment about the uncited Czech material. If the posting editor has not provided citations the content must be removed from mainspace and this is quite lenient because it really should have been removed as soon as it was posted. All of this waiting and advisement is strictly a courteousy to the editor but is a disservice to Wikipedia and to the reading public. I am prepared to move the content to user space, any comments?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Anupam's disruptive editing
This is regarding Anupam's repeated attempts to delete/move 'A TED talk by Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism' in external links of this article. His disruptive editing is not limited to this, but I thought this is clear example of it.

Anupam, first you tried to delete this link without giving any reason or comment in your changes. Then you moved it to the end, when | I reverted it asking for reason. You didn't give any response. and then | moved the link again.

And everytime you are deceiving us by sneeking-in such deletes/changes with other major changes, so that it's very difficult to detect or search through history. This is very unfaithful of you.

Please stop doing this or else I will need to report to admin. Abhishikt (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have that TED talk link as the first external link. The link pertains to the modern pejorative usage of the term, which is last in sequence of the relevant sections. Moreover, it is unilateral and polemic in nature. Please move it back to the bottom of the list. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is Why deceive by sneeking-in changes and not giving reasons when requested and keep on reverting other's changes?? Abhishikt (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did give reasons for moving the link. I previously stated that the link was polemical in nature. Since you have insisted on retaining the link, I did not remove it again but placed it in order of historical occurrence, but you continue to move it back up to the top. I hope this clarifies the situation. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey easy on the accusations. Anapum bends over backwards to appease the POV warriors and in my opinion way too much. To now slap a derogatory label of "Disruptive Editing" is more saber rattling becaue it implies he is engaging in sanctionable policy violations. I dislike many of his edits including reversions of some of my edits, his failure to press certain points in which IMHO he is correct but insufficiently persistent and some of his content additions I am not too wild about, but he is a conscientious and careful editor and if some of his edits are not to your satisfaction I suggest you either open discussion on those edits or if you have grounds, simply revert them. You have the power to do so at WP so why not use the powers at your disposal and spare us another round of the accusatory personal attacks such as those which I endured as the price of admission to this highly contentious artice. Thank you for your courteous consideration of these points and, in advance, for your collegial response. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However I agree with :Abhishikt that the link is essential and I give no weight to Anapum's objection because the mere fact that he regards it as polemical is irrelevant lacking a WP policy banning polemical speech which is ridiculous. In fact this whole article is a hypostatizing of a concept which in most uses is polemical contrivance concocted to wage propaganda against not only avowed atheists but anyone who would challenge ecclesial authority. For instance, the mere conjunction of the ADJECTIVE+NOUN form has been erroneously used to create a completely false notion of a "term-in-use" since 1894...that is only one of many such absurdities. But what is relevant to this issue is that the fact that soneone regards Dawkin's talk as "polemical" and therefore deletable and deletable against consensus is simply a spurious posture which I don't find consistent with Anapum's more professional editing work. So unfortunately it is necessary to concur with Abishikt on this particular matter, and perhaps there has been some not-entirely-proper moves, but it doesn't seem that prosecution of each other over these minor infractions is not worth the freight so why don't we let this link exist, forgive and move on. I will look at the ordering and register an opinion on the order of the links if it seems like that opinion may be useful, but it doesn't seem to me that there are very many other videos which are as pertinent as this one so I will provisionally weigh in with Abishikt.
 * Keep link; high priority for link; provisionally. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OBJECTION WAIVED BY DEVILISHLYHANDSAOME Someone "snuck" replaced this link (see edit) to an Off Topic article basically an anti-Soviet screed unrelated to atheism, militant atheism, the suppression of religion by atheists bur simply some alleged lousy science by the Soviets (same folks who brought us Sputnik, the Mir space station, bunch of incompetents those Soviet scientists, eh?) At any rater, Militant Atheism @ WIkipedia is supposed to be about the alleged phenomena of Militant Atheism, if there is such a thing, and not a generalized grab bag for Bad Things About Russkies. We all know that Kawmunism is Bad. This is not the place for a broad POV propaganda offensive against TheRussians. I don't know if the link was added after we had agreed that it was OT or maybe it was just left there inadvertantly, I am not jumping to any conclusions.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep" does not refer to this off topic link it refers to the Dawkins video link. Anapam,regarding this rv whatever we may have or may not have concurred on notwithstanding, what is any connection between Soviet science and militant atheism is a pretty far stretch. Can you assert a continuity to warrant inclusion of a link to an article about Soviet suppression of science in a section about Soviet suppression of religion? It seems that if you want to link out from the section that a link to the article about Soviet censorship generally suffices. This is not necessarily the ruin of the article, but it seems like an uneccessary OT link which creates the appearance of an anti-Soviet POV. It hurts the credibility of this article because it looks like it is more about dissing the Soviet Union any way it can than about MA. I have no love for the USSR but it seems like there is enough to say about its suppression of religion without careening off into OT. IMHO.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not worried about it. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not worried about it. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Froes (ref 66) POV presented as fact and way overstated
"In addition to the antireligious substance of each course, the curriculum from the universities in the Soviet Union presented scientific findings correct or incorrect based on their supposed ideological positions, not on the objective, applied, and experimental essence of science.[66]" Each and every course? Not so. The quote oddly lists standard cirricula (Physics, Math,e tc.) as though inclusion of those course was Evil. The mainspace should either attribute the POV or tone down the broad sweep. It's just silly to think that each and every course (Differntial Equations?) was agit prop. Also, USSR scien did not present each finding correct or incorrect based on ideology, they packaged them so that they would not contradict dialectical materialist ideology, which is bad, naught, red communist evil, but it did not mean that they went so far as to present findings based upon ideology, at least not in all cases. The primary features included an emphasis on Darwin and Lenin's pontifications. But this doesn't mean that the basis of their findings were always predicated upon first ideology, then data. How else would they have produced the Sputnik?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one commented on this, so I went ahead and tried my hand at a revision. I invited comment and won't take offense at all if people come up with a better way to match the mainspace sentence(s) with the verifiable reliable sourcing:


 * TO MATCH THIS CITATION:


 * Please keep your comments, per usual, cordial and collegial, thank you in advance.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed re-ordering: French Revolution prior to Russian/Bolshevik period.
Section French Revolution should go up top because it was the precedent for Marxist-Leninist militancy related to this topic. Doesn't seem like this should be too controversial.

We do all agree that 1844 preceded 1917, right? Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the specific dates, but I am somewhat puzzled to see that the French Revolution is placed as an afterthought to the commie bashing that a lot of people like to come here for.  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Today: Please disentangle Michael Ruse,[118][119] and Bruce Sheiman [120],
RE: "Prominent atheists, such as Michael Ruse,[118][119] and Bruce Sheiman, state that "when militant atheists portray religion, they critique every political and organizational misdeed that can be attributed to it" but "portray science in idealized terms, untainted by commercial interests, political intrusions, and ethical conundrums."[120]" The text summary intermingles these two authors + three references in a manner which is unsuitable. If might venture to sift them but someone may be unhappy, so I will make the suggestion and perhaps someone would rather come up with some language. But they didn't both make both statements, and, for that matter, it is not apparent from the foot notes that either made either remark. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the appropriate changes to separate ownership of the quoted statement. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

TWO main uses
Even the Conservpedia article is more forthright in quickly getting to there being TWO main uses of this term AND distinguishing them. It says, in its 2nd sentence, "It can be found in varying degrees of militancy, from atheist authors such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who advocate atheism and oppose religion through books and speeches but do not advocate violence against religious people, to communist regimes, who advocate atheism and oppose religion through the repression and murder of believers." Just a month ago, the WP lede had, for a while, THREE paragraphs. That allowed the first paragraph to give a short description of the term & state there are TWO main usages BEFORE the lede (in a 2nd paragraph) got into details about state atheism. A third paragraph can then be about the more current usage of the term, and criticisms of such usage.--JimWae (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not knowing where you're going with this probably helps, but in the interest of brevity, I'm with you.   Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We have made major headway in the article and addressing this issue will end the NPOV dispute in the article. I am committed to compromising with you on the issue and look forward to your reply. I can see your point that the Conservapedia introduction does explain the degree of militancy involved. Do you have a proposition for a sentence like that that we can insert into the article? If so, please state it below. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * End the NPOV dispute? Not even close. For starters, the extreme opinion of a Jesuit has been smuggled back in, see below, and the article is laced with agenda-driven wording to give credence to the anti-atheist jihad. That's not what WP is supposed to be about.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Intermingling of dubious POV assessments
 Anapam's edit masquerades a POV of a Jesuit as "Truth". You need a citation of a faction within something called "militant atheism" stating that is has these characteristics. With that edit, as, it seems in others, a Jesuit "hardliner" theology is being snuck into Wikipedia. And even if these characterizations are true and accurate, which they are not, necessarily, and not verifiably, they are not both true of all so-called "militant atheists". Wikipedia is not Jesuitopedia.


 * Atheism is classified in Roman Catholic writing as "militant atheism" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated,.


 * The truth of the matter is that the people such as Dawkins who are labeled "militant atheists" don't choose to "propagate" any "doctrine" but either


 * to stop the harmful proliferations of evangelical religionists
 * of
 * to stop the harmful practices which go with religion, whether or not the religions themselves proliferate.

Dawkins is mainly about the latter, as are most. Atheists as a rule disclaim caring one way or another about what people believe. They are militantly opposed to militant religionists proliferating their views.


 * If you object that this is OR or an essay, it might be if I put it in mainspace. But Anapum's edit makes into mainspace the essay of one isolated Jesuit ideologue, without the attributions he edited out. That makes this Wikipedia article a WP:SOAPBOX for the Jesuits.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See also []

Introduction
Closing this as supported - clearly, some users are opposed to this shift. While there is more support than there is opposition, the opposition still has a voice. I'd like to petition the supporters to continue working with the opposition to find more compromises and collaborate on further change. For clarity's sake - this is not a blank cheque for anybody who supports this version to mercilessly revert unrelated changes. Also, any further changes should be discussed on the page. We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes.

Keep up the great work, though. I think we're making progress. m.o.p 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! I would like to thank everyone for all their efforts in trying to ameliorate this article. It has been a long process, but we have all offered our thoughts, references, and work to make way for a better page. Per the suggestions of users such as User:Devilishlyhandsome and User:Abhishikt here, I've moved much of the philosophical discussion on the concept of militant atheism to its own section, titled "Concepts," which is the same way the article on existentialism is setup. In turn, I have retained a précis of the information of the "Concepts" section in the introduction, which is supported by four references, as delineated above. User:PeaceLoveHarmony suggested an introduction above, which drew mixed responses, due to the fact that its language such as "ambiguous, and broad-ranging" was not specifically stated in any of the references, as suggested it should be in WP:RS and WP:V. Its statements of categorizing the entire term as being a pejorative one also was not grounded in the reality that organisations, such as the League of Militant Atheists, considered the term to be one to take pride in, as mentioned by User:LoveMonkey and User:Turnsalso. I now offer an introduction, that in accordance with WP:LEDE, summarizes all the content in the article, and more importantly meets WP:RS and WP:V. In otherwords, nothing therin is a synthesis of information, but reflects the content used in reliable sources. Furthermore, it distinguishes between historical usage and recent usage of the term, also taking into account that it is used pejoratively nowadays. I offer this introduction for evaluation here. Thank you for your time, understanding, and contributions. Cheers, AnupamTalk 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I support this introduction per the argument listed above. It meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEDE and moreover, is not a synthesis of ideas. It also gives due weight to the material presented in the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is not from NPOV. It is not much different from what we have currently. It doesn't solve the various issues like clearly stating various usage of the term. Abhishikt (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Stop VOTING. This is not GoogleTopHits. This is not 50%+1 makes it Truth.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support KEEP voting! While not perfect, the proposal is the best I've seen so far. It covers the salient points and is sourced. – Lionel (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Editorial decisions are based upon consistency with principles not a majority in an given discussion.Groupthink forced "consensus" is subject to reversion by the next new editor and previous consensus is meaningless. WP exists in the present. Please familiarize yourself with Polling is not a substitute for discussion if you are at all serious, thank you in advance. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can support the proposal made here. I do not see any major problem with it. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support We are here to improve and this appears to be a move in that direction. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This doesn't seem to address any of the issues editors have raised above, namely by distinguishing the two uses of the term. We need to incorporate that into any lead changes.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose substantively and as a point of process. Aggregating the issues is not what works what works is breaking the issues out piece by piece. My major substantive concern has been expressed elsewhere and as I recall implemented without objection. Imposition of this proposal en bloc is at this stage a dead letter and it were somehow rammed through, anyone sticking to the totality of this edit out of some kind of "loyalty to the (old) consensus" would be violating the basic premises of Wikipedia and of rationalism. Each issue has to stand on its merits, and some sort of bloc voting on a block revision is the kind of "herd" or "mob" action which has been harshly criticized at Meta and in the mainstream press. How about we agree not to agree out of groupthink and decide each issue on its own merits. This is not the Cominterm.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This intro still has the same problem which the entire article has, which is that it disingenuously conflates violent atheism of past totalitarian regimes with the current peaceful atheism advocacy of the so-called "New Atheists". The difference between the two needs to be drawn much more strongly, both in the lede, and in the article itself. As to the false claim that my previously deleted lede uses original research and synthesis, I suggest taking a look at my comments in the relevant discussion above. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Link here--> PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support There is no conflation, there is mention of the two applications of the term. It can't get much less conflated without saying "some people apply 'militant atheism' to the New Atheism movement, but that's just silly." Turnsalso (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SupportIt is well written, and clarifies the well sourced uses of the term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure of Introduction Issue and Word Razor Solution
Hello, today I noticed that Introduction discussion was closed by the administrator who has been overseeing progress on this page. I went ahead and implemented the supported introduction, complete with the sourcing. Moreover, I've also taken the time to address several of the legitimate concerns that User:Peterstrempel addressed in the Word Razor section in several of my edits, including but not limited to the following edits: Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. In light of these facts, I have removed the NPOV tag from the mainspace of the article as the major issues with this article have been resolved. Any other new issues regarding the article can be discussed on this talk page. Thanks for all of your help and contributions to this article. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems some stability may be upon us. It appears POV discussion has tapered off. No objection to removing the tag. – Lionel (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean that the article is now written from NPOV. So putting it back. Abhishikt (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NPOVD? It clearly states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." You have not done so. Moreover, the main discussion regarding the introduction has been closed by the reviewing administrator. I have also worked with other editors here to resolve specific statements in other parts of the article (see the specific exhibits above). You cannot blindly add tags without pointing to certain statements and the consensus of other editors who have worked here for months. If you have a legitimate concern, you may bring it up. However, do not breach policy and edit war. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this article, but consensus was clear for the new lead. Adding the tag again is highly disruptive. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Voting" took place over only 3 days (July 26-28) - and several changes to the lede were made AND accepted AFTER the last "vote" was entered. Those changes were reverted when Anupam removed the NPOV tag. When "voting" was closed, the closer expressed the desire that the article continue to be worked on, not that a previous version be reverted to. He also did not suggest the article was now NPOV. The Conservapedia article is still more forthright in quickly stating that there are 2 main uses AND in distinguishing them. I would also point out that many moderate atheists also hold that religion can be harmful and that (despite the 2nd sentence of the current lede) is NOT a distinguishing mark from militant atheism. Here is an alternative: --JimWae (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Historically, the term's main application has been to atheist states, such as the former Soviet Union, which have regarded atheism as a doctrine to be propagated using all the powers of the state, including the administration of punishments for religious activities. Recently, the term has been applied, often pejoratively, to atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Victor Stenger (atheist writers often identified as New Atheists), who argue strongly for atheism and against religion, but who do not advocate punishing religious people.[15][16][17][18] Some activists, such as Dave Niose, have criticized this recent usage on grounds that it has been used indiscriminately for "an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God."[19]
 * JimWae, I did not mind mentioning the term "New Atheism" in the lead. However, it was contested by several editors as a synthesis of information. Though I supported its inclusion, others did not. As such, my revision of the introduction, which was indeed accepted by the reviewing administrator as consensus did not include mention of this term and a common characteristic binding these authors. Moreover, an attempt to add a descriptor to the introduction, which I thought was helpful, was reverted. Also, it is inappropriate to infer that your comments are somehow being ignored. You posted a discussion regarding this topic earlier and I tried to work with you there and suggested that you make a proposal, which you never did. In light of all these facts, I do not think that we should re-add the term "New Atheism" and a descriptor of the authors, because other editors have objected to it, even though I supported these suggestions. In addition your statement "who argue strongly for atheism and against religion, but who do not advocate punishing religious people" does not have any supporting references. One point about the current introduction is that everything is verifiable. Your assertion to remove a distinguishing characteristic that militant atheists hold religion to be harmful is unwarranted because that statement is supported by three sources, as well as the above consensus and administrator approval. I recommend the invocation of WP:STICK regarding that issue. If you do have other issues with the article, I recommend that you actually post them here, as other editors, such as User:Peterstrempel has done; as evidenced from the above exhibits, I addressed those issues. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus does seem to have been achieved in that issue; a third party (MOP) even thought so. Voting took place over three days? No, votes were cast over three days; the discussion itself remained open for well over a week afterward. It appears that the definition "sufficient voting time" is here defined as "enough time to get a majority who oppose the introduction," which I'm pretty sure is not a Wikipedia-quality definition. Turnsalso (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Turnsalso. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My points are 1> 3 days is the time over which "voting" took place - and lots of time elapsed between the last "vote" and the closure. In that time, several other changes to the lede were "accepted", which Anupam reverted after the discussion closed. 2> The sources do NOT say "militant atheism... differs from moderate atheism because it holds religion to be harmful" - they say "usually or *always* harmful", "a harmful *aberration*" (not as a distinguishing mark from moderate atheism but from tolerant atheism), and "pernicious". Moderate atheists also think that religion can be harmful. (Even devout theists can agree that religion can *sometimes* be harmful - especially if that religion is not their own.) The distinguishing condition is that militant atheists see either virtually no value in religion, or more harm in religion than in its elimination. I know I have not provided a source for that yet (and may not find one since this whole topic is a mess) - but the 2nd sentence still oversimplifies what the sources say & misrepresents them. 3> The lede still does not distinguish those "New Atheists" from state atheism. (It is not a big deal to me if "New Atheists" are not mentioned - they are all mentioned individually anyway.) They do not advocate punishment for religious activities. --JimWae (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was clearly NO consensus. There were multiple issues/objections raised and NONE of them were addressed, then how on earth is that a "consensus". And removal of POV tag is completed related to lege. When I tried to put back the POV tag, Anupam did edit-war and violated the WP:3RR rule in putting back tag POV tag. This is completed un-ethical. Abhishikt (talk)  07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Abhishikt, it's interesting how five out of seven editors in this discussion have acknowledged consensus: User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:NYyankees51, User:Turnsalso, and User:LoveMonkey. I will repeat myself once more for you. Have you read WP:NPOVD? It clearly states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." Not only have you failed to mention any specific concerns, you performed a drive-by tag on the article and have edit warred to add it against consensus. User:NYyankees also echoes my post when he stated that your drive-by tagging is "highly disruptive." Contrary to your emotional comment, I have addressed several issues here and have provided several exhibits to demonstrate that fact, for example, see Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. Rather than being belligerent, if you do have any objections, you are welcome to state them here in writing and we will try to address them. I hope this makes things clear. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam You need count it and read it again, there were opposes raised by 4 editors and none of the issues raised by them were addressed. So can you get consensus by 5/7 editors? Abhishikt (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand? I even listed the editors for you! I will do it once more: User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:NYyankees51, User:Turnsalso, and User:LoveMonkey, which amounts to five editors. As far as the issues, you need to explore the exhibits I listed in my previous comment, rather than repeating the baseless statement that "none of the issues were addressed." Your chicanery in this matter is unacceptable. --AnupamTalk 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So your math is 5 supports and 4 opposes, which means 5 out of 7 editors supports and there is consensus??? And have you forgotten that "voting" is not consensus. Abhishikt (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No Abishikt, there are not four opposes here. There are only two in this thread, you and User:JimWae. --AnupamTalk 08:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you have not read Talk:Militant_atheism again. It was also opposed by Jess· Δ♥, PeaceLoveHarmony and Devilishlyhandsome. BTW my name is not Abishikt, it is Abhishikt (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are appealing to the issue of the introduction, which has been closed as supported by administrator, User:Master of Puppets. I would suggest reading WP:STICK. This issue is discussing your POV tag removal. Please kindly stop the conflating the two issues. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue with your moot points anymore. Other editors have also called your warring highly disruptive. Good night, AnupamTalk 08:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The close of the intro discussion was proper. The duration of the discussion was 16 days. Longer than usual. It was closed by an admin. This is not the venue to discuss the close. If you have an issue with the close--do not bog down the talk page--take it up with the admin. The close was 9 days ago. It is too soon to reopen this. The discussion to remove the POV tag took place 9 days ago. If you have a specific POV issue, start a new section and state it. There are admins watching this page: continued edit warring is subject to blocking of your account. – Lionel (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite formatting: google books and quote parameter
I trimmed a bunch of overlong Google Books URLs, reducing them to the page indicated. If only snippets were available, then I got rid of the URL as it was not directly supportive of the quote. In those cases I replaced the URL with the page number.

In general, the page number and year of publication should always be part of a citation.

Some of the citations were unneeded as they quoted the same guy with the same quote as the previous cite. I deleted those.

I find this article to be a nightmare to edit because of the great many quotes, lengthy ones, in the cite quote parameter. I do not feel these to be especially helpful in the cases where Google Books is available to take the reader directly to the page in question. Many are longer than is needed to prove the point.

In total, I deleted 45k of duplicated material, overlong URLs, quotes that are easily accessible, and so on. That's a lot of extra gack, and I think more can be trimmed. For instance, there are instances where two to six cites follow a stated fact. This is overkill and bogs the article down. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! Which citations did you remove specifically? Also, one thing you must realize is that this is an article that is controversial. The material that has stayed in the article must discuss militant atheism specifically and the quotes are in the references to ensure that the statements in the article are verifiable. You can look through the archives to see that this has been discussed before. I do not wish to personally revert your removal of some of the quotes because that would revert your other work as well. Since you are new to this article, I would like to inform you of the page notice, that one of the reviewing administrators, User:Master of Puppets, added to the article. It has been added so users will discuss major changes to the article before implementing them. For example, the introduction of the article was discussed above and was then added to the article. I would kindly request that you please reinstate the quotes and references you removed. I would really appreciate it! Other than that, good job on adding the page numbers and year of publication to the references. The introduction was developed after months of discussion. The introduction originally made reference to the New Atheism movement, specifically. However, it was decided to explicitly list those belonging in the movement in the introduction rather than listing the movement (please see the archives). I would suggest reinstating the original introduction and discussing your proposed changes and reasoning behind changing it on the talk page to see if it gains consensus. I personally do not want to revert because you have made valuable edits. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly new to the article; I participated on the talk page a month ago, now in archive 4.
 * Your question about which citations exactly did I delete is a revealing one. The citations in this article are far too unwieldy, and such a simple question is not easy for people to determine by looking at the diff.
 * I removed duplicate refs, ones which were unneeded because they supported the same quote. I consolidated duplicate cites.
 * In terms of "major changes", I do not consider my cite formatting to be major. I do not consider summarizing a sentence in the lead section to be major, especially since that sentence was an exact duplicate of one in the article body, so I did not remove information from the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also: The accessdate parameter is not needed in a book cite. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the following cite:
 * It supported the same text as the preceding cite which I kept:
 * Other cites that I removed were simple duplicates that I combined in a named ref. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why remove the second reference? The publishing company is different and it supports the assertion to ensure verifiability. I would request that you please reinstate references such as this one, that you have removed. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, duplicate cites clog the article, helping to make it a pig to load and a bear to navigate. One good cite is enough to nail down a fact. One! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is an article which covers a controversial topic. Citations from different authors and publishers help support extraordinary claims. How many such references have you removed from the article? I would appreciate if you could let me know. I look forward to your reply. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, controversial topics do not need any more support in their stated facts than other topics. Erecting a wall of quantity is not the way to build an article; it goes against Article size. One or two quality cites are better than multiple cites. In fact, the essay Controversial articles only mentions one cite per fact: "When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source." If there's a particularly "non-centrist" fact to support, "it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives." What is not desirable is to repeat the same exact quote in more than one source. Right, the guy said that. We get it. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The same source from two different publishers does not two sources make. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V is why these two sources are included, not trying to synthesize an article via a wall of quantity. WP:RS says: "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires in-line citations 'for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.'" The use of multiple sources for the same quote indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement (especially important considering its likelihood of being challenged), because of its greater degree of documentation, more readily verifiable. Turnsalso (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:V does not recommend multiple sources when one is sufficient. It does not support your view that using more than one source "indicates effectively that this is not a transient or one-off statement". One reliable source is enough for verification.
 * I did not attack the "wall of quantity" as synthesis, I attacked it as impenetrable by the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources are a good thing. Multiple sources are a very good thing. Citing the same material many times because its been reprinted many times is tantamount to spamming. --Dannyno (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not attack the "wall of quantity" as synthesis, I attacked it as impenetrable by the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources are a good thing. Multiple sources are a very good thing. Citing the same material many times because its been reprinted many times is tantamount to spamming. --Dannyno (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)