Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 8

Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine
If "Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine", shouldn't there be some first-hand references to statements by "militant atheists" rather than second-hand interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the whole article seems to be full of strawmen, rather than anything demonstrable that would link 'New Atheists' actual statements about their goals with the enforced atheism of the (often mentioned) Soviet Union. Add to this the fact that in the short Criticism of the Term, there are two instances where the criticism is followed by counter-criticism (the statement “The Freedom From Religion Foundation, however, has been called a "militant atheist group" in The Washington Examiner” adds nothing) - almost nowhere in the rest of the article are counter-arguments added from the 'Militant Atheists'?Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Rolf Schmidt, I might note that on your userpage, you have indicated that you "believe religion is harmful to society"; you have also indicated that you "imagine...no religion" and even display the no symbol over the word "God." You are entitled to your opinion but perhaps it might be creating a conflict of interest in this article, which discusses the viewpoint you hold. You've alleged that the article is "full of strawmen." However, when one looks at it, it is evident that there is an abundance of sources to buttress the statements therein. Did you not note the "Media" section of the article, which is an entire paragraph of Richard Dawkins' response to the criticism? Also in the paragraph above, did you not see his response to Michael Ruse, where Ruse is compared to Neville Chamberlain? If you can find more information, along with the corresponding references, on "Criticism of the Term," by all means, add your suggestions here and we can discuss their potential incorporation. However, please consider the information that I have just presented, as well as reading information that philosophers have written on the subject, given in the "Concepts" section of the article; like every sentence in the article, the original quotes from the academic books and journals are given in the citations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lame! Argue the point, not the person. There's no need to attack Rolf for his userboxes. It would be just as relevant to refer to your interest in Catholicism and to your attendance at United Methodist churches in order to remove you from the article per COI. Please avoid any more ad hominem attacks. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Binksternet, my comment was not an ad hominem. If you noticed, I stated that he was entitled to his opinion and moreover, I never stated that I viewed his beliefs negatively. My comment was analogous to User:Griswaldo's comment above which stated that "The rest of those opposed appear to be, by the looks of their talk pages, conservative and orthodox Christians of different varieties. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative or orthodox Christian, but it is also doubtfully a coincidence that these are exactly the groups of people who most vehemently oppose New Atheism in mass culture." The majority of the paragraph above was spent addressing his points, where I demonstrated that counter-criticism was given. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Griswaldo directed you to jump off a cliff, would you? What I continue to consider very lame is you first telling Rolf (and the world) that you think he has a conflict of interest, belittling his contribution. I think that was the more influential and egregiously wrong part of your post, more than simply addressing his points one by one. There is nobody in religious discussions who can be said to be free of some sort of interest, so lay off that line. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are indeed people in religious discussions with little to no interests in either direction. The problem with Wikipedia is that hardcore atheists and hardcore religionists (conservative Christians for the most part) often make it completely impossible for these more neutral voices to be heard as they reenact the culture wars over and over and over again. The problem does really cut both ways. You have editors at pages like this trying to fight their religious battles by making atheists look bad, but you also have atheists at entries like Genesis creation narrative insisting that "myth" must go in the title (despite the fact that scholarship does not agree) because the stories of the bible are total "fiction." If I had my druthers none of these people would be allowed to edit religion/irreligion entries unless they were capable of leaving their culture wars at the door. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Binksternet, there is a major difference in holding a religious viewpoint and advocating the elimination of others' beliefs. I am going to restate the fact that I said he was entitled to his beliefs but I kindly asked him to reevaluate his view of the article in light of the fact that he might have a bias. I would kindly ask you to assume good faith in my actions, trying to be understanding rather than being disparaging. What I find interesting is the fact that you never commented on User:Griswaldo's entry of the same nature but choose to comment on mine. I do not wish to push this conversation further and encourage you to comment on the content, rather than on me. If you share the same views about content concerning criticism in the article, I implore you to pursue further research in the area. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a last-ditch comment intended to demean another person and thereby raise you up. Your grip on this article is slipping. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam, my comment above was an evaluation of the last request for comment. The facts I presented about the people who opposed it were actually relevant to the point, which is that the stale mate we had is not representative of the community as a whole. I'm terribly sorry, but making that kind of comment requires some degree of evaluating the types of editors in the discussion. What you said is not comparable to that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Griswaldo, I did not object to your comment actually. I understand why you might have made it. The reason I made reference to your comment here is because my comment was of a similar nature and User:Binksternet did not hold the same standard with my comment as he did for yours. I hope this clarifies things for you. Take care! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I just semi-protected the article for 1 day based on a request at WP:RFPP. I'm concerned that an IP editor was making the exact same reverts as a registered editor who is currently in a content dispute. It could be someone who just forgot to log in, it could be someone new entirely (though that seems unlikely), or it could be someone intentionally trying to avoid tripping 3RR. In any event, the semi-protection temporarily prevents the latter from happening, and I don't see a big history of IP edits on this article that the 1 day protection will harm. However, the edit warring still needs to stop. Y'all should continue the discussion in the section above, and not revert each other while the discussion is on going. I don't want to have to come back and issue blocks or fully protect the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation, however, has been called a "militant atheist group" in The Washington Examiner”
The owner of this article has asked me to justify my deletion of the above irrelevant comment. I did so in my edit summary. Do I need to come here and beg permission of Anupam before deleting irrelevant material from the article? Now, let's attend to that truly appalling introductory paragraph. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Snalwibma, in your edit summary, you stated that "Remove irrelevant and feeble attempt to have the last word. This is a section about criticism of the term "militant atheism", not a forum for random comments about organisations you disagree with." First of all, this information has been in the article for a very long period of time; as such, you cannot assume whether I agree with the organisation or not. Moreover, the fact that you personally like the organisation does not mean that it is immune to criticism, which is encyclopaedic information, especially considering the fact that the organisation is discussed in the previous sentence. According to WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The information is not being presented as fact; rather, the statement is attributed to The Washington Examiner. There is no need to remove a verifiable sentence, which is supported by a reliable source from the article because you disagree with their conclusion; all relevant viewpoints should be discussed. The nature of your edit was contentious as an anonymous IP Address reverted your removal of referenced information. As the reviewing administrator on this article cautioned, I would highly encourage you to discuss this issue and gain consensus for any action, rather than remove longstanding information from the article. If your issue is with the way the sentence is worded, I am more than happy to compromise with you on this. You can suggest a proposed wording of how you feel the sentence should look. Moreover, I agree that we should focus our attention to the introduction of the article; a discuss is open on that topic right now. I hope you will comment there. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to note that before I had the chance to revert the removal of this information (which I was doing in my subsequent edit), another anonymous IP address reverted the same removal a minute before I could do so. This further demonstrates the contentious nature of User:Snalwibma's removal. Once again, I implore you to discuss this issue and gain consensus for any action, rather than remove longstanding, verifiable, and referenced information from the article as the reviewing administrator on this article cautioned. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that the quote about the Freedom From Religion Foundation comes from a reliable source, or that it is well referenced. Rather, it's a simple matter of relevance at this point in the article. It would be quite appropriate to use this in an article about the Foundation, or elsewhere in this article, such as in a section discusing organisations that have been described as "militant atheist". But this section of the article is discussing views about the use of the phrase "militant atheist/ism", and inserting the comment about the Foundation looks like a pure editorial point-scoring attempt to discredit Fahringer and her views. It is an example of the fact-stuffing and point-scoring tendencies that the article suffers from, further evidence of the way the article has been hijacked and turned into an opinion piece about the evils of atheism instead of an honest and encyclopaedic attempt to discuss the subject. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there is no serious problem showing that the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" has been referred as a "militant atheist group", and it seems to be within the article's purpose to offer information about people or organizations which have been identified as "militant atheists". (However, it could be reworded and perhaps shown in parentheses.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any bare statement that this person or that group has been called a militant atheist is not helpful to the reader. Such bare statements do not assist the reader in understanding the reason. Many such statements are not notable, or are not particularly revealing. This article should not devolve into a List of people and groups that have been called militant atheist. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But this does not look like just a simple "bare statement", since the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" organization (which is not without influence) is already mentioned in the article. So mentioning that this organization has been seen as a "militant atheist group" can provide the reader with more information which can be relevant to the article's topic. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain why they were called such and the bare factoid will be transformed into something worthwhile.
 * You restored the bare bit with the edit summary "Since, this information has already been in the article for some time, please do not remove it without consensus." That is not a valid reason for keeping low-quality text. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, think the article would be better without it. How many different editors have to stand up to the editwarring before it's finally acknowledged as "consensus"? bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is here to better inform the reader of the term's contemporary usage. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a known, influential organization, and shows that the term is not necessarily applied solely as a slur against individuals. Moreover, it is not an attempt to discredit the organization, as it has been mentioned earlier in the article and is framed with the words "has been called" and "in the Washington Examiner." How these statements are read as "is plainly" and "as is proudly declared in its founding charter; seriously, just take my word for it" I still do not understand. Also, perhaps context from the article would be better than an explanation, as I'm sure "by the Washington Examiner for its status as a group advocating the abandonment of religion" would be dismissed as non-notable or original research or conflating the FFRF with the USSR. Hmmm, now [|where] could we find that context?Turnsalso (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Bobrayner, in your comment you stated that you "think the article would be better without it." This is NOT a sufficient reason to remove a longstanding, referenced, and verifiable piece of information from the article, especially when WP:NPOV demands that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an advocacy group arguing for a position. As such, it is completely relevant for a major media source's categorization of the organisation to be included in the article, as it provides the reader with context of the comment and is relevant to the topic being discussed. I would argue the same position if the Alliance Defense Fund were making a comment on the subject. Furthermore, the reviewing administrator of this page cautioned all parties involved here not to make changes in the article without gaining consensus for it first; he even stated here: "Simply put: don't make large-scale changes without consensus, don't revert others without good, unbiased reason (vandalism, BLP violations, etc)." A specific page notice was even added to enforce this. You have broken this injunction and I would kindly request that you please self-revert to the former consensus version and allow this issue to be discussed thoroughly before any action is taken. Contrary to your edit summary, three users here, in addition to two anonymous IP addresses have expressed disapproval with the content/reference removal from the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You quote WP:NPOV but the policy does not apply to the presence or absence of this factoid. You quote no consensus to make changes but every editor here is breaking that "injunction", not just the ones who disagree with you. Consensus can change. What applies most directly here is WP:UNDUE and simple common sense, such that a bare fact that does not elucidate the topic is not needed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also (yes, I can see I do have to repeat myself), it may be relevant elsewhere in the article, given enough context so that it makes sense, but it is clearly not relevant in this particular section of the article, which is not concerned with which organisations and/or people have been called MA, but with comments on the use of the term MA. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Snalwibma, where in the article should the statement be moved, in your opinion? I feel that it belongs in the place where it is located now because it clarifies an aforementioned advocacy organisation. Also, I beginning to wonder why User:Binksternet supports an unclarified criticism from the FFRF in the article but championed for the elimination of a reference from the Biologos Foundation, an advocacy group holding the opposing viewpoint. I think I will soon comment on the removal of the information presented by Ian H. Hutchinson, Ph.D., professor of nuclear science at MIT. I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if the article included a list of organisations and people who have been labelled MA, that might be a suitable place - but that section was mercifully deleted some time ago, as too likely to deteriorate into mere mud-slinging. Tacking on the information in question doesn't clarify the organisation, it merely labels it. What is it that you wish to clarify - that the FFRF is an atheist group whose opinions therefore don't count? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I was the one who actually wrote most of the "Criticism of the term" section and removed the "mudslinging section" you refer to so setting up an emotional strawman to represent my reasoning for the inclusion of a relevant statement is not helpful. I stated that WP:NPOV demands that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an advocacy group arguing for a position. As such, it is completely relevant for a major media source's categorization of the organisation to be included in the article, as it provides the reader with context of the comment and is relevant to the topic being discussed. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would one support it being added in with the statement mentioning the FFRF above, something like "The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has been labeled as a militant atheist organization by the Washington Examiner, etc."? Turnsalso (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Anupam: Ian Hutchinson, PhD, deserves to be quoted on physics topics. He is a plasma physicist at MIT, and perfectly qualified to speak on physics. On atheism and religion, his cred drops to nil. He is not notable on the topic of religion and his opinion about militant atheism is not worth inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Turnsalso, I will be willing to accept your compromise, if User:Snalwibma is willing to. User:Binksternet, Catherine Fahringer of the local San Antonio chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation does not possess any doctorate and is far from an authority on theology. Moreover, Ian Hutchinson, as a scientist is qualified to speak on matters of religion and science, which is often the centre of discussions held by proponents of New Atheism. Regardless, I am not going to discuss this issue now but will bring it up later, after the current issues are resolved. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Full protection
Per the Wikipedia Protection policy, I've fully protected this article indefinitely. Until a resolution is reached, the current version will stay as it is.

Please understand that, while this is no one user's fault (no, really, I mean that - don't start pointing fingers at each other), I'm pretty amazed at how resistant some people are to instruction. I've warned everybody, multiple times, not to edit war, no matter what (with the exception of blatant vandalism). I even created a page notice to warn all new incoming editors. And, funny thing - we were actually getting somewhere by discussing changes. But, unfortunately, sometimes people can't get that warring instinct out of their heads, and here we are.

As said above, the page will remain protected until disagreements are sorted out.

Any questions are welcome on my talk page. m.o.p 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is really too bad. When several editors make the same edit against the wishes of one editor, it isn't edit warring, it's the maintenance of consensus. The one editor is violating WP:OWN in such a case. By locking the page you validate their claim to ownership. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm protecting it because this has been going on long enough and nobody seems to understand that, when I say no edit warring, I mean no edit warring. I don't care if anybody's attempting to own the article, or injecting unaccepted facts - take it up on the talk page and let me, or another administrator, know. Reverting them is literally just as good as doing nothing - it just sparks a dispute.
 * So no, this is not the fault of one editor. m.o.p  22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not take this authoritarian tone. Your authority comes from the community and it is granted you to keep us in line with policy. Tell us not to do something because that's the correct way to follow policy, don't tell us not to because you said so. What you say is immaterial, but what policy and consensus say is not. So sure, help keep us in line with policy, but that comment just now is just seriously offensive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do with your reply, given that my decision to protect is solely policy-based, and that all previous actions were undertaken on the community's behalf - how is this authoritarian? Would you like me to moderate articles by sitting by and quietly protesting until the article is reduced to a few shreds of contested paragraphs? It's been three months of moderation and continuous discussion, yet people still feel the need to push each other back and forth - therefore, the article has been locked. If you're still unsure as of whether or not I'm acting with policy, feel free to ask me to explain further. m.o.p  22:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like you to reconsider saying things like: "When I say no edit warring, I mean no edit warring." Have you ever been a child or a parent? I assume at least the former. You must understand how patronizing such comments are. I never said you don't have a policy based reason for your protection, I am simple reflecting on the comment you made, and the tone you made it in (like an angry parental authority figure). You are the one who stressed that when you say this you mean it! If you don't get this then I'm sorry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Griswaldo, there was no consensus to remove the information. In fact, three editors, including myself, User:Cody7777777, and User:Turnsalso expressed our disapproval with the information being unilaterally removed. User:Snalwibma did not discuss the removal of the information but did so unilaterally, which is why I reverted him once, two anonymous IP Addresses reverted him several times, and User:Cody7777777 reverted him. The removal of information was not performed after consensus. You did not even add a single comment to the discussion that was taking place about the topic! Instead, you reverted the reinstatement of the consensus version and are now stating that I was violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I was not edit warring, and even engaged in discussion with other editors on the topic. As such, it is totally appropriate that User:Master of Puppets protected the article (preserving your revision by the way) because you were not following the injunction given by the reviewing administrator: 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. You also ignored the page notice given to create a spirit of discussion, consensus, and then change. As a result, do not criticize User:Master of Puppets, but look to yourself for violating consensus, edit warring, and posting rude messages, when you never bothered to discuss your edits in the first place. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * mop, don't let Griswaldo bother you. He's just acting like a dick because he's pissed that his OWN accusation against Anupam didn't stick, and his edit warring was for naught. On behalf of all the other editors I'd just like to say mop you've been fair in your "oversight" of the article and your admonition is well taken. – Lionel (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the article be split?
Should this article be split to separate criticism or derogation of New Atheism from text about State atheism, Laïcité, Secularism and Antireligion? Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support either splitting or dabbing this page, as the current article seems to mash together several different uses of the simple phrase - an abstract concept preceded by an adjective; and we already have multiple articles on the abstract concept - it's more like Dominant group than Splendid isolation. The article gives the impression that these different uses of the phrase are the same thing. They're not; some are bitterly incompatible with others. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The current entry is in violation of WP:SYNTH. People using the same term in different ways does not make a cohesive subject matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support also would support disambiguation as an option and I agree with Nil that the RFCs should be merged. Currently conflates different meanings of the phrase. It's like combining visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the air together with internet-based use of computer technology stored on servers because they both happen to be termed Cloud. Mojoworker (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment. Support. I'll explain why in the RfC below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTE The same RfC is being discussed below. Please comment there. In addition, another RfC regarding the introduction is taking place above; comments there would also be appreciated. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion
Hi all, just passing through. I noticed in the lede Sam Harris is currently linked to a disambiguation page. This should probably link to Sam Harris (author). If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it. causa sui (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The page also contains links to disambiguation pages at Intolerance, David Singer (in a footnote), and Evangelical Lutheran Church. bd2412  T 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picking
The first sentence currently reads:
 * Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.

then gives 6 refs, only one of which uses the word "hostile". This is cherry-picking. Other sources describe different ways of being militant. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The lede needs to reflect the variety of views taken by sources by saying something such as "Militant atheism is a term that has been applied to atheists for various reasons, including hostility to religion, a desire to control or eliminate religion, and/or a belief that society would be better without religion." which uses the same sources.--JimWae (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced and was accepted during the last closed discussion of the issue. I understand that you wish to work on the introduction and I have moved the discussion below so others may also be able to access it. I would request that you please provide a source for the statement you invented. Instead of adding another tag to the article, please discuss your issues here, in accordance with the reviewing administrator's notice here, which states: "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." Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag is pertinent and it stays until the issue is resolved. Anupam, you do not WP:OWN this article and I would like you to please consider this a warning regarding that guideline. You cannot demand that the article exist in your preferred state unless you've agreed to change it in a prior discussion. This is a collaborative project. Jim feels that the tag is necessary and he has stated his concerns. I agree with him. Convince us otherwise but please stop acting like you have the right to maintain the article above all others. You do not. I'll leave you an additional message on your talk page about WP:OWN as a behavioral issue as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already a tag on the article and placing extra tags is disruptive when you could simply discuss the issue. It is improper to retag an article just because you did not accept the outcome of the previous discussion. The mere fact that "you agree" with User:JimWae is not enough. Others have been willing to discuss the issue with him as well; see the discussion where User:Cody7777777's comment went unresponded. I'm willing to collaborate and have actually have evidence in this article's history to demonstrate this: Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three. I am once again going to repeat the reviewing administrator's words for you: "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." I am willing to discuss the introduction, and even re-wrote it to address the concerns you have. However, you have not even commented there and would rather edit war over an extra tag. This is not only disruptive, but disrespectful. Consider this a warning to respect consensus. As a courtesy, I will leave this message on your talk page so you can reflect on the spirit of discussion and collaboration. Also, do not make loaded statements and state that I am reverting to the version of my preferred state; this is hardly true in light of the gargantuan NPOV banner in the main space of the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC, and a tag is not a content change. If you want to take it up with that administrator please do, that way I can discuss your WP:OWN violations with them. There is no magic "consensus" written in stone regarding what this entry should look like. There are many dissenting voices here, but you just argue people to death and revert them when they try to make changes or add tags. I've had enough and I like I said on your talk page you've been warned. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that consensus is subject to change and that is why there is another discussion going on over the introduction, which you have not bothered to participate in; rather, you have chosen to edit war (please see WP:WAR). Also, your condemnation of my willingness to discuss my issues with others and provide solid references for my views will not be taken seriously, because this is how Wikipedia works. I understand that an administrator will be arriving to look at the issues going on here. I hope you have had time to reflect on the warning on your talk page. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented much here but I have been reading it, and Anupam has always been ready and willing to discuss thoroughly. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what is the POV issue here. While the statements that militant atheism includes "a desire to control or eliminate religion, and/or a belief that society would be better without religion" can show accurate information, they describe nonetheless a hostility to religion. As far as I see, all the references mentioned there, seem to speak about the same view, some sort of hostility to religion (even if the exact term "hostile" is not used, and to me this looks like common sense), the sources do not seem to contradict this view. So I don't see how exactly there is a conflict with neutrality here. And regarding WP:OWN, neither Anupam nor other editors own this article, and that is one of the reasons these issues should be solved through discussion and consensus (not edit wars). Cody7777777 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading through this discussion, I have to conclude that Anupam is not "cherry picking". Though only one of the six sources mentions the word "hostility", the others do not contradict such a deduction. It would be another case if 3 of the sources categorically stated that miltant atheism is NOT hostile to religion. Besides, all of wikipedia is not a quotation - writing a good article involves the assimilation of information and a reasonable interpretation and summary thereof. I don't see how any of the six sources mentioned fail to back up the inclusion of the word "hostile". I also feel that Anupam has at all times been willing to discuss matters of contention but is being increasingly hampered by other editors making unilateral changes contrary to consensus and abbrasive to the delicate nature of this discussion. basalisk (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that the lede should acknowledge that there are other characteristics besides hostility for which the term has been applied to people. None of the sources give a definition and picking one way of being "militant" over others (such as just being outspoken about criticizing religion) paints everyone with the same brush. Besides what is called "hostility" is open to interpretation. People get militant about things for other reasons than just because they are hostile, such as defending themselves against discrimination. To give sole prominence to it being about having a hostile attitude is prejudicial. There is no ideology called militant atheism that fits every athiesT who may be militant, and there is no single attitude or motivation.--JimWae (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence even cherry-picks from the sole source that mentions "hostile". Bagginni gives other characteristics besides an attitude of being hostile. Incidentally, attitudes are generally attributed to people or to actions - not to concepts. Being "hostile" can mean anything from being unfriendly to going to war. Some dictionaries say it can mean simply being opposed to something. To select a single such word from all the sources, a word that has so many degrees of meaning, is not being true to the sources (even accepting the lack of definition in any of those sources). --JimWae (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the Conservapedia article is more forthright in 1>not reducing the topic to a single attitudinal characteristic, and 2>aknowledging in its 2nd sentence that there is a separation, at least in terms of *degree* (and even in kind when it states that atheist authors do not advocate "violence"), between state atheism and atheist writers.--JimWae (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over WikiProjects
Start discussing the project issue on the talk page, and stop edit warring. I can see why the article is locked. We've got five users tag teaming each other on both sides of the content:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Both Snalwibma's and Anupam's reverts are clearly edit warring. Geremia and Mann jess should have both started discussion after their reverts, and Cody7777777 should have taken this to talk before his revert. Everyone stop, calm down, and start discussing. aprock (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Aprock, User:Cody7777777 actually did inform the reverting users about the mistake. Please see Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are not links to the article talk page. You yourself restored the content for a third time, clearly edit warring.  Even discussion on this talk page wouldn't support that sort of disruptive behavior.  Discussion on other pages certainly does not excuse any of the disruptive reverts. aprock (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was helpful for User:Cody7777777 to inform the reverting users personally as he did. I correctly restored the relevant templates after there was no more objection at the reverting users' talk page, referring to User:Cody7777777's explanation in my edit summary. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of debating the degree to which you think your third restoration does or does not constitute edit warring, why not discuss the issue you were reverting over? aprock (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Aprock, the issue was already resolved as the reverting user placed no further objections on his talk page after User:Cody7777777 explained to him why the projects are relevant. As such, I saw no need to add an additional comment. I apologize if I caused you any inconvenience. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently you don't want to discuss the issue on the talk page. That's fine.  Your disruptive edits have caused me no inconvenience. aprock (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you misunderstood my reply. As User:Cody7777777 explained, WikiProject Christianity (and its workgroups), as well as WikiProject Islam are relevant to this article because they were directly involved in the events described in the article: see the section on Soviet Bloc to provide the context for my comment. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think aprock misunderstood you. I think you are dancing around the issue of edit warring, that is, not admitting your own edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek was correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my hastiness in reverting. I can see why the page should be tagged with fairly high-level categories relating to christianity and islam, and also a few specific flavours of these, such as eastern orthodox, which is directly relevant in the case of the soviet bloc etc - but why is there any need to get as specific as catholic/protestant, and why on earth the seventh-day adventists, the lutherans, etc? And why not buddhism, hinduism, shinto, etc etc? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 19:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, since you ask, there is an appearance that it skews towards those religions that are most likely to regard the New Atheists in a negative light, and skews away from those that are less likely to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I reverted on the basis that (at that time) no one but Geremia objected to the removal, Geremia didn't provide a reason for his revert (except to question why it was done), and there seemed to be agreement here and on ANI that the wikiprojects were inappropriate. I pointed to the ANI discussion in my edit summary to answer his question, and hoped that if Geremia still objected, he would open discussion here. I agree, the subsequent edit warring was unhelpful. Talk page content isn't that big of a deal, guys. I do understand the reasons presented to keep the wikiprojects, and I understand the reasons to remove them. I have to say I find the reasons to remove more compelling. That is to say, there is the appearance that this article has been placed in certain wikiprojects to ensure a certain demographic of editors watch over it, rather than to group it in categories that intersect with its domain. For instance, why add the Baptists workgroup, but not add WikiProject History? I have to agree with Sarek, and that appears to be the consensus thus far. The only explanation of keeping the projects I see was made by Tryptofish, who also agrees with Sarek. I'd urge those supporting the projects be kept to actually discuss the issues here, rather than edit warring over their removal. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states "In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church." This statement is supported by two sources. Seventh Day Adventists are also important here for the same reason; according to Ukraine and the Subjugated Nations:


 * It's not helpful to remove involved projects from this talk page. Already, three different editors have reverted the removal of these project templates from the talk page. In response to User:Snalwibma's comment, I would have no objection to the addition of other pertinent WikiProjects here, such as WikiProject Buddhism, as they too are relevant to the article. However, removing other templates, because certain ones are not present now, is inappropriate. Moreover, there was no consensus at ANI to remove the projects; the only project that was contested was WikiProject Conservatism. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You've listed a couple denominations that get a single mention in the article, and according to you, the Adventists aren't even mentioned at all, save alongside "the soviets" in a book we're not even using. (BTW, I checked your link, and it turned up nothing). Then there's the ones you've left out, like Anglicanism, which I'll take it don't even have that rationale. But whatever. This seems pointless to discuss if the article will be split. If it's still here after the RfC, then we can reopen this discussion. I will note that it seems unlikely keeping Christianity and Islam wikiprojects at high importance won't continue to sway the demographic of of voters on this page, which alongside the canvassing seems inappropriate, particularly given the level of support for removing them. But, frankly, I have better things to do with my time.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject banners are intended to show that a WikiProject has taken interest in an article and believes it is within their scope. They're not like categories, you don't add them because you think they might apply. WikiProjects decide for themselves what articles are within their scope, and WikiProject members decide their quality and importance ratings based on established criteria. Apunam added high importance ratings for WP:Christianity and WP:Islam, but I note that the WP:Christianity importance criteria for 'high' has not been met ('The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Christianity.') and Apunam is not a member of WP:Islam at all.


 * This behaviour strikes me as a very transparent and dishonest attempt to draw the attention of groups that have otherwise expressed no interest in this topic, and misusing mechanisms to that effect. Sarek's comment when he removed the banner was correct, the banner is inappropriately used, and with inappropriate importance levels set.


 * I think it would be appropriate - if the split decision somehow doesn't pass (though it looks right now that it will) - that the WikiProjects that have been added indiscriminately to this page be notified, and uninvolved members of the projects assess whether or not this article falls within their scope, along with quality and importance assessments if it does. If they determine that this article is not within their scope, the project banners should be removed. Banners are not a weapon, they're not a notification tool and they're not a cheap way to get around canvassing rules. They should not be misused in this way. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent suggestion: let the projects decide whether they want to be here, instead of editors here attempting to read their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concerns raised by Mann jess, Tryptofish, and TechnoSymbiosis about the use of WikiProject banners here, and with TechnoSymbiosis' suggestion for resolving the question. I would reinforce the concerns that the use of WikiProject tagging (and importance rating) here gives off a strong odor of gaming the system, and I would hope not to see this sort of thing repeated. MastCell Talk 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uneven treatment
Anupam, you realize that User:SarekOfVulcan is an administrator right? I am asking you this because while you have been commanding us all to treat "reviewing administrator Master of Puppet's" opinions like they are the law apparently SarekOfVulcan's are to be treated like chopped liver. Why is that Anupam? Why is it that when an administrator steps in and disagrees with you, like Sarek when he removed those Wikiprojects, you take a different tone about administrative authority?Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "administrator" thing works the same way as the "consensus" thing. Edits that anupam disagrees with must be reverted because they are against "Consensus", and against the word of whichever administrator once agreed with anupam. On the other hand, if anupam agrees with an edit, it's simply accepted; neither consensus nor administrative support is required. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm at the end of my rope with these antics. User:Lionelt is now going around trying to drum up support against me personally at talk pages he has never edited before but clearly found in my edit history. I've reported him to WP:WQA but I'm not sure how much longer I can tolerate this kind of crap. Why is it being tolerated?Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. aprock (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If only you'd posted that earlier. Would have saved me a heap of pointless trouble :).Griswaldo (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart!! A source!!
I, and other editors, have asked for a reliable source that, in a single source, treats the two broad "types" of "militant atheists" as the same thing, within a single source. In other words, a scholarly authority who considers both the state atheists etc. and the New atheists etc. as being basically the same thing, so that we are not in the position of having editors being concerned that there is WP:SYNTH in treating the New Atheists as though they are part of the same phenomenon as Stalin et al.

In the thread just above, Cody provides a link to this book:, Darwinian Misadventures in the Humanities, by Eugene Goodheart. The author is identified on the back cover as an emeritus professor from Brandeis, so I would say that this qualifies as a reliable source, at least for whatever the author says. I don't believe this source is on the page now, but we should evaluate whether it may be useful once the page is unprotected.

On page 30, the author describes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as militant atheists, which seems compatible with sources already cited. The link provided does not include page 38, but Cody reports that page 38 uses the phrase "a militant atheist like Dawkins". Of what I can read in the pages that are visible, the book is a very strongly worded criticism of Dawkins and other Darwinist intellectuals. The author, clearly, is a critic of Dawkins. I note that this link was found using the search terms "tyrants-who-have-acted-in-behalf-of-militant-atheism-tyrants-such-as-Hitler-Stalin-and-Mao+a-militant-atheist-like-Dawkins", based on the URL of the link.

Clearly, we have here an RS author who, in a single work, describes both the state atheists and, at least, Dawkins with the same phrase. Not seeing page 38, I cannot really tell whether the author is saying that Dawkins is a militant atheist in the same meaning of the phrase as is applied to Hitler et al., or whether the author is using the word "militant" as an adjective with a separate meaning, or indeed is using it sarcastically as a rhetorical device. We need to pin that down. (I'll point out that ArbCom, in the recent Noleander and Cirt cases, has taken a very harsh view of using material selected out of context to portray living persons unfavorably.) Does the author discuss the New Atheists, as a group, as being a class of "militant atheists"? Or does the author criticize Dawkins specifically, based on Dawkins' work on evolution, as a Darwinist whom the author regards as strident or otherwise incorrect? And, are there any other sources that discuss the two "types" together? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this will allow you to read most of it. Interesting stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, from page 38 on, it's still just isolated quotations, without being able to view the full page (or even paragraph). The isolated quote on page 39 also mentions Dennett, but it's hard to tell whether the author is saying that Dawkins and Dennett are alike, or are different. Clearly, this is a more appropriate source than what we have had before, but I want us to be very careful about using a search engine to cherry-pick quotes without knowing the context. Is there anywhere that the author actually discusses the similarities and differences between state and New atheism? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Tryptofish, thanks for your research! Yes, this author uses the same base of militant atheism, that several philosophers have defined, as given in the "concepts" section of the article; as such, both Dawkins and Stalin can be called militant atheists, despite the fact that they apply the concept differently. I compared this to the Christianity article, which discusses the Crusades, as well as the founding of the World Council of Churches in the same article. In the same fashion, both a Crusader and a televangelist can be called a Christian. The issue here, apparently is distinguishing between the application of militant atheism in the USSR and by the New Atheists, which is a worthy cause to pursue, as is being done in modifying the Introduction. Even if the RfC closes to delete the article on militant atheism and convert it into a disambiguation page, according to Wikipedia policy, this technically cannot occur. According to WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Throughout the RfC, we see comments by several editors saying things such as militant atheism, "It's like combining visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the air together with internet-based use of computer technology stored on servers because they both happen to be termed Cloud." The fundamental idea of these comments is flawed; we cannot create definitions of terms here or decide whether a locution is acceptable or not. Of course, some people in discourse, object to the term, and therefore, this should be reported in the article. In the words of User:Cynwolfe, "what matters is whether RS can sustain an article explaining how the concept is discussed in various sources. The aim of a concept article is never to dictate a single "definition", but to inform the reader of the full range of discourse on the topic." The word "militant atheism" is discussed by several philosophers as the reliable sources clearly demonstrate. We cannot simply delete an article because we do not agree with what the reliable sources say, which some users who have supported the deletion have done, though they may have been well intentioned. Rather, we must faithfully report what reliable sources state. I look forward to any comments you might have on what I have just stated. Thanks again for the effort you're putting in here. I hope my comments were helpful. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was Cody, not me, who found the book, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant to say, thanks for your comment. User:Cody7777777 has done a great job of finding the source. What do you think of the argument presented in my comment, however? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be sorry you asked me. I think it's a very weak argument, because it does nothing to show me any reliable sources that actually say that state atheism and New Atheism are parts of the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What strikes me at first read is how little state atheism is discussed in that book - almost all of it on page 30 (Note: "homicidal tyrants who have acted on behalf of militant atheism"). There's no doubt that the Soviets had a policy that translates to "militant atheism". There's no doubt plenty of people have called the New Atheists militant atheists, as was Charles Bradlaugh & Madalyn Murray OHair. There is no body of scholarly work linking the two "realms", though there are several works that say atheism (or any kind) is somehow responsible for Stalin and Hitler & Mao. Atheists (militant or not) are bound to agree on some things, even if they have tremendous disagreements otherwise. Atheists who think we are better off without religion and get labelled militant are not responsible for what others who thought the same did when they achieved dictatorial power. There is no body of scholarly work that extensively tries to link the two as this article presents the topic. --JimWae (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It very well may be that this source is really a criticism of Darwinism that refers to Dawkins several times as "militant", and only discusses the state atheists on one page. It certainly seems as though there are not a lot of other sources that get at the issue. We have to be very careful here that we are not cherry-picking quotes out of context. I'm reserving judgment for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking that book. On page 38 the source stated "Despite the frustrations of a militant atheist like Dawkins, who believes that the world would be better off without religion, it persists" (shows a hostility to religion), but it clear enough that the state militant atheists also believed the world would be better off without religion (their persecution of religious groups shows this, and their hostility to religion). And even if the book discussed more about other things, it contains nonetheless information relevant to the topic of this article. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IN Canada, I can see almost every page from page 27 to page 42 inclusive. There is very little there about state atheism, at least in that chapter--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The clearest connection in terms of "ideological tradition" he makes is on page 31 with "Dawkins and Williams are in a tradition that includes Marx, who spoke of religion as an opiate and Freud for whom religion was an illusion" - making no mention of "militancy"--JimWae (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear that the passing mentions in the book, and the polemic nature of the work do not rise to the level of notability on the article level. This source might be used for citing Goodheart's own views in the New atheists article, which appears to be one of the main topics of the book. aprock (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this sentiment. I was quite interested to read an educated comparison but the content I looked over seems to read much more like partisan commentary than academic analysis. The source is valid, of course, but since it seems to be the only one so far, we should be careful to respect WP:DUE (and WP:FRINGE, to the extent that it applies) - it is clear, at this time, that this linking of the two 'militant atheism' uses is not widely represented. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a RS, so there are no WP:SYNTH problems the advocates of the split have been concerned about. Geremia (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A single source isn't enough to create an article, but it is enough to include material in an existing article. This is, so far, the only source conflating the two otherwise distinct meanings of militant atheism into one, and if you read the material in the source yourself you'll see that it's never done explicitly, the connection only exists by virtue of both uses being in the same book. From WP:N: 'Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic'. That is precisely what the split will achieve. This source on its own isn't sufficient to sustain this article, but certainly the material (and the source) can be included in State atheism or New atheism. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:TechnoSymbiosis, nevertheless, a plethora of sources from philosophers that define a concept (with the sources corroborating one another) is sufficient to have an article per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't use sources that deal with one or the other concept to justify the existence of an article that connects the two, that would be synthesis. There are ample sources to describe each separately, and I have no problem with the material going into their respective separate articles. There aren't enough sources to this article in its current state, which mixes the two concepts as though they were interchangeable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the references within the "Concepts" section don't refer to the USSR or to New Atheism. They simply define militant atheism, apart from its applications. This article deserves its own page, as militant atheism is coherently discussed by philosophers, whose definitions corroborate one another (see the concepts section of the article). The fact that there is a separate section for New Atheism in this article demonstrates that it does not equal the militant atheism of the French Revolution, for example. How do you reconcile the fact that the article on Christianity discusses both the Crusades and the formation of the World Council of Churches as an expression of Christianity? Why can this not be the same case here? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Actually", as has been pointed out numerous times to you (both by myself and others), there is not a single source that even proposes a "definition" that covers both state atheism and atheist writers and excludes non-militant atheism. There is no reliable source that says there is an underlying concept or ideology that applies to both, as many others have already remarked--JimWae (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When an individual defines the word "Christian" they do not attempt to accommodate the religion's specific applications, such as the Crusades or televangelists; rather an individual talks about the concept of Christianity. In the same fashion, the general concept of militant atheism, which is indeed provided by philosophers, does not attempt to address specific applications of militant atheism, whether that be the French Revolution, USSR, or New Atheism. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I rationalise your Christianity comparison on the basis that there are countless sources that identify both forms of Christianity as manifestations of the same essential movement, and the church itself recognises this fact. There are no sources that say that 'Soviet militant atheism' and 'Richard Dawkins, militant atheist' are the same essential movement. That they use the same name is irrelevant: their etymology is very different. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all of you for checking that source. However, I have to say that I do not understand why we should assume the author uses differently "militant atheist" when referring to different people (unless, the author explicitly states this). There is also another book, which claims that "Dawkins, Hitchens, and their new, militant atheist buddies are promoting an intolerant agenda that would make Joseph Stalin proud. We must be clear on this — this is not an overstatement.". And there is also the following source stating "militant atheism in such forms as European Communism has largely disappeared. It is left to Richard Dawkins and other writers to keep the cause alive.", and this indicates that communist and the "new atheists" shared the same cause of "Militant Atheism". However, the sources have described "Militant Atheism" as being in some way hostile to religion (the sources do not claim that "Militant Atheism" refers to hostility done only by "state atheists", or hostility done only by the "new atheists", and there is no radical different description claiming that "Militant Atheism" is not hostile to religion). And it is obvious enough that the "state atheists" and the "new atheists", who were identified by sources as "militant atheists", were in some way hostile to religion, and in some way promoted atheism. I would also mention again Cynwolfe's post where he explained why this is not a synthesis issue. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Goodheart source is just a self-published polemic that does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. The fact that Goodheart is a retired professor has no significance, because the source is not scholarly in nature. Using this source would be the same as using Chick tracts to source the article on Roman Catholicism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. As well, Goodheart fails to define "militant atheism". Like "heavy weather" and "hard knocks", the term is easily found in books but not worthy of an entire article about it. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that it was self published. If that's the case, there is little to discuss regarding the source. aprock (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not peer-reviewed. All that it can be used for is to source that the author defines "militant atheism" in a way that few, if any, academic sources do. WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL also apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's get our facts right. No, the Goodheart book is not self-published. The publisher is an imprint of the Rutgers University Press. There are varying degrees of peer-review that go into such presses, but the books satisfies WP:RS as a secondary source that presents one academic author's view of the subject matter that the book discusses. The book is a reliable source for what the book is about. However – and this is a very big "however"! – the book is not a reliable source for whatever editors here say it is: it's a reliable source for what Goodheart said, not for what editors try to make of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. This explains why I didn't notice it was self published.  I likewise agree that Goodheart is a good source for what Goodheart wrote.  As noted above, this source does not elevate the purported broader meaning of "militant atheism" to a notable level. aprock (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would explain it! { --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be cautious in using this book to establish either a definition of militant atheism, or in attempting to claim there is any conceptual continuity between usages outside of the writings of Goodheart. I say this because the book appears to be a polemic. That doesn't make worthless, but my point is that Goodheart is not arriving at conclusions about the similarities of state atheism and New Atheism out of dispassionate scholarship on the subjects, he is asserting similarities to further his polemical argument against neo-Darwinian intrusions into the humanities. Of course this is of interest here, but it not the kind of source we ought to be shaping whole entries around.Griswaldo (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

...or maybe not
I said earlier that I was reserving judgment. I've now had more time to read what is available, and it increasingly looks to me like the evidence points toward splitting up this page. First, about the Goodheart book. This link:, gives the most content visible as a free preview. Start by looking at the front material, on page 1. Goodheart makes clear what the book is about: the problem, as Goodheart sees it, of using Darwinist methodology from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, to "extend their domain to the humanities". He isn't writing about atheism, but about academic methodology applied in various specialties. He finds fault with Dawkins for applying Darwinism to religious studies. As JimWae pointed out earlier, Goodheart really isn't concerned with defining or characterizing state atheism. Go next to pages 39–42, not cherry-picked quotes, but the entire text of it. Goodheart makes it very clear that Dennett is in a different category (for Goodheart's purposes) than Dawkins is. He finds fault with Dennett, but he does not consider Dennett to be "militant". So, we do not have a source that classifies the New Atheists, as a group, as "militant atheists". Just a source that harshly criticizes Dawkins for being "militant", in the context of using Darwinist thought where Goodheart would prefer to use other philosophical constructs. And, although the book makes passing mention of Hitler et al., we do not have a book that evaluates state atheism, much less really argues that Dennett, or the New Atheists as a group, are in any way related to state atheism.

Cody also added some more links: The Atheist Delusion, Vatican teachings, and a search result for "books promoting militant atheism". What these sources all have in common is that they are (1) written by harsh (militant?) critics of atheism, and (2) found by using Google search to find strings of words designed to return quotes that, if read in isolation from the rest of the sources from which they come, sound like they link together the themes of this page.

What do we have, then? Plenty of sourcing to expand New Atheism by saying that critics of it contend that is suffers from being "militant". That should happen. But, even with all this searching, we have zero sourcing to support the synthesis that state atheism and the New Atheists are both parts of a phenomenon that can primarily be described under the umbrella term "militant atheism". I also want to point out – strongly – that Dawkins, Dennett, et al., are living persons, and thus subject to WP:BLP. In the recent arbitration cases about "new religious movements", ArbCom made it very clear that it is completely unacceptable to present material that shows living persons in a negative light, when that material is obtained by taking quotes from sources out of context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why "Hitler et al" keep being mentioned. The Nazi state was not atheist, it was theistic ("Gott mit uns") and Hitler certainly was not an atheist (see Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs). Paul B (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because the source being discussed mentions him. aprock (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence, perhaps, that it is a poor source. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be a good source for something else, but it's a poor source for this page. And it's the best source for this page, which says a lot about this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please alter statement about Michael Ruse
"Michael Ruse, a prominent atheist and biologist at Florida State University, has denounced militant atheism because of its attempt to conflate atheism and Darwinism." For purposes of clarity it is best to either remove this entirely or change it to: "...has denounced the recent (as of 1999) writings of Richard Dawkins for claiming that Darwinian science dictates atheism." I ask this change be made speedily because it is easily confirmed by a fact check that within these sources Ruse is not referring to militant atheism as a whole, but rather to an individual who Ruse does not generalize to militant atheism, as he says "[Dawkins] has appointed himself the spokesman for militant atheism as well as militant Darwinism" (emphasis my own). I feel it is important that a false generalization not be made, and please refrain from using the word Darwinism out of context because it is often misunderstood (as Ruse illustrates in the second source). Incidental to my request, I wish to note that the idea that evolutionary science and theism are compatible is held by many religious organizations, so it's somewhat disingenuous to say this only in the context of one atheist's philosophy. Thank you. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A) you have not said "Change X to Y", B) this needs agreement; please continue to discuss it, either here, or on BLPN for a wider argument - but, as a 'request to edit', I can't do this right now as you haven't actually given specifics.  Chzz  ► 04:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My request is "Change 'Michael Ruse, a prominent atheist and biologist at Florida State University, has denounced militant atheism because of its attempt to conflate atheism and Darwinism.' to 'Michael Ruse, a prominent atheist and biologist at Florida State University, has denounced the recent (as of 1999) writings of Richard Dawkins for claiming that Darwinian science dictates atheism.' " If others wish to discuss alternatives, I've given some general comments above and I welcome their input.  Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would change "(as of 1999)" to "circa 2000" or something else without parenthesis (you should never use parenthesis). N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The current formulation does look like severe out-of-context quoting. In the two cited passages by Michael Ruse that mention Dawkins, he attacks him for the simplistic position that Darwinism automatically applies atheism. This may be a popular opinion in today's US, but it's not compelling, and it's clearly not shared by the large number of Christian Darwinists. In one of the passages he uses the term "militant Darwinian atheists", but I don't think this can be read as 'militant atheists' who happen to be Darwinian. Rather, it appears to refer to people who, like Dawkins (according to Ruse), try to 'prove' atheism through Darwinism. Ruse clearly does not attempt to speak about 'militant atheists' in general. His topic is Darwinism, not atheism.

As the passage in the article misrepresents the published opinions of a living person, it must be corrected quickly. While I would personally prefer a correction that goes further, I agree with the one proposed as a quick hack that might be easier to get consensus for. Hans Adler 09:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hans. Removing the Michael Ruse text seems best as it appears to read much more in the source than is present. The pages cited say almost nothing about "militant atheism"—all I can see is a rather corrupted interpretation of what Dawkins wrote (in The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the article be split or made into a disambiguation page?
Should this article be split to separate criticism or derogation of New Atheism from other uses? Or should it be reduced to a disambiguation page, sending the reader to various related articles such as New Atheism, State atheism, Laïcité, Secularism and Antireligion? Well-referenced text from this article would be merged as needed into the other articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternative phrasing:   Should this article be eliminated either entirely or partially (by moving some or all of the content into other articles such as  New Atheism, State atheism, Laïcité, Secularism and Antireligion)?"  --Noleander (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternative phrasing:  Should this article be split into Militant atheism (historical usage) and content pertaining exclusively to the criticism New Atheism be moved to New Atheism? The page for Militant atheism would serve as a disambiguation page for the two articles. Another option that administrator User:SilkTork suggested would be to have an article on Militant atheism and Militant atheism (word), the latter of which would explain the usage of the word throughout time, with the former article discussing the historical usage, paralleling the article on Jew and Jew (word) (NOTE: I do not personally oppose the splitting of the article for reasons I describe below. However, this wording of the proposal would be a compromise between the two parties that might be the next best option, in my humble opinion).--AnupamTalk 23:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that last alternative phrasing captures any proposal for any change to this article. Historical usage began before the USSR existed -- and includes, from the outset, criticism of outspoken atheists. The split needs to be on separating State atheism content from New Atheists content--JimWae (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, User:JimWae. However, it seems as if some users here have favored such as approach, including User:Yunshui. It will encourage more discussion! As such, let's wait and continue to read the responses here. Right now, eleven individuals have uniformly opposed and sixteen have supported some kind of split. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, Yunshui's proposal specifically uses the parenthetical (state atheism), not (historical usage) as in your alternative. aprock (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, the parenthetical, historical usage, is more applicable to the content in the article outside of state atheism. Moreover, my proposal is in harmony with WP:DABCONCEPT. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * historical usage does not separate out any usage at all -- at BEST, it reduces the content of certain topics. This RfC has been consistently about separating out State atheism from New atheism. If you want to start a separate question, it needs another section. Your proposal is distinct from the previous topic, is not an ALTERNATIVE wording of the topic, and is off-topic regarding the positions below --JimWae (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, one proposal above talks about making a disambiguation page and the other talks about moving content to other named articles. There's nothing wrong with offering an alternative for discussion. After all, that's what this RfC is for. I hope this clears things up. Thanks for your understanding, AnupamTalk 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is still not an ALTERNATIVE wording of the question - it is a separate question-- placed above answers people have already given to the original Q. Besides, (historical usage) could contain the exact same content as this article and be subject to the same problems this article has - trying to subsume Dawkins & Stalin under one ideology --JimWae (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because all the content on this article discussing New Atheism would be moved to New Atheism. The ceontent regarding the French Revolution, League of Militant Atheists, USSR, Marxism-Leninism, Cultural Revolution, Mussolini, etc. would be moved to Militant atheism (historical usage). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What would make that usage THE historical usage -- AND how would such an article be distinct from the State atheism article (or any of the OTHER several articles already dealing with that same topic)?--JimWae (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article of state atheism can only discuss atheism, as applied to governments; similarly the article on state church can discuss Christianity as applied to governments. However, the article on state atheism cannot discuss the ideology of militant atheism itself, which has sometimes manifested itself as the ideology held by an atheist state. In the same manner, the article on state church or Islamic state cannot discuss Christianity or Islam, respectively. In light of this fact, militant atheism deserves an article in its own right. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1>Now you are backtracking 2>you did not address "What would make that usage THE historical usage" Anyone could come along and add other usages in the history of its usage. 3>An article on State atheism can certainly discuss a policy some state had which they called "militant atheism" 4>Saying there is an ideology "militant atheism" shared by Dawkins & Stalin is exactly what led to the problem we are trying to deal with here. Starting another article with apparently the same problem would not be any compromise nor any attempt to move forward. --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop revising comments people have already responded to --JimWae (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I just thought I would add a proposal that administrator User:SilkTork suggested earlier. Take care, AnupamTalk 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion belongs in a separate section. The original question was whether the article should be split generally, and 30+ editors have already responded to it. Rephrasing the question now to add specifics no one has discussed or agreed upon is unhelpful. Noleander's phrasing seems acceptable, and in-line with what editors have been commenting on thus far. We can discuss specifics elsewhere. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, I've moved the discussion to a separate section, as it's clogging up the actual RfC, potentially making it appear to be asking a different question than what was intended. Thanks,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved my comments back to their original place and hatted this discussion since you felt it might have clogged up the actual RfC. Placing my comment in a separate section made it appear as if I advocated splitting in the first place, which I do not. The proposal right now names specific articles that content would be split into and the wording I placed details the disambiguation and splitting proposal. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, this is a little disruptive. You've received input from two editors now that adding new conditions to an ongoing RfC question is unhelpful. None of the editors below who have supported or opposed have done so with your proposal in mind, but putting it here makes it appear as though they have. I'd very strongly urge you to move it back to a separate section (with whatever wording you'd like) so it can be discussed in its proper place, without disrupting this RfC.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, the hat you just added is fine. Thank you for that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is assuming that you intended to hat the proposal. Hatting the discussion and not the proposal worsens the problem, because it only censors the objections to it. I've (Jimwae) moved the hat up to encompass the whole thing. If you meant to not hat the proposal, then I would again urge you to move this to a separate section. Or, you could make the addition in the "comments" section like every other editor, instead of changing the wording of the question, and see if others comment on it there. Thanks.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome User:Mann jess. Right now, we have a good number of editors that oppose the split altogether, such as myself, and a good number of editors who support some kind of split. In the event that a split is the outcome, I will suggest this proposal as the specific way of splitting the article. Take care, AnupamTalk 00:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support either splitting or dabbing this page, as the current article seems to mash together several different uses of the simple phrase - an abstract concept preceded by an adjective; and we already have multiple articles on the abstract concept - it's more like Dominant group than Splendid isolation. The article gives the impression that these different uses of the phrase are the same thing. They're not; some are bitterly incompatible with others. bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I read the first half of the article, and I don't really see what the problem is. Is it that people have issues with so-called militant atheists of today being confused with the historical definition? If so, I don't think that's a problem, because the article is pretty explicit in that regard. I like the phrase, "Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe..." and the next sentence tells us the appellation has been criticized. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Adjwilley, thanks for your comment, exactly! The current introduction does read well, and gained consensus recently. Nevertheless, some users still had a problem with it so I re-wrote the introduction here. I hope this helps. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Anupam's approach, and I think any perceived problems can be solved by being more explicit about how the current use of the term is different than the historical use. I don't know a whole lot about atheism, but after reading the article I certainly didn't come away with the impression that the people who have been called militant atheists today have anything to do with what was going on in Russia and France, etc. P.S. if you merge these RFC's please make sure not to count my vote twice, since I commented early on in the other. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose There is no need to split this article, and the RfC held this past summer found no consensus to do so. Moreover, the references in this article never use the terms "State atheism", "Laïcité", "Secularism", and "Antireligion" to describe the content. Rather, they use the term militant atheism; as such placing the content and references from this article into another one constitutes WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In addition, secularism is far from militant atheism; the two are completely different concepts. This article passes WP:N. Several renowned philosophers have written on the topic of militant atheism as given in the Concepts section of the article. Moreover, all of the philosophers are uniform in describing the concept of militant atheism as demonstrated by the following sources, which corroborate one another:

According to Atheism by philosopher Kerry S. Walters (published by Continuum International Publishing Group): According to Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions, by sociologist Phil Zuckerman (published by ABC-CLIO): According to philosopher Julian Baggini, in his book, Atheism, under the heading "Militant Atheism" (published by Sterling Publishing): According to Karl Rahner, in the encyclopaedia, Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi (published by Continuum International Publishing Group): According to Yang, in "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China" (published in the Sociology of Religion by Oxford University Press):

As we can see from the above reliable sources, the concept of militant atheism, an atheistic hostility to religion, is well established by philosophers. Nevertheless, this concept has been applied differently throughout history, e.g. the League of Militant Atheists in the U.S.S.R., the state policy of the U.S.S.R, in the writings of Marxism-Leninism, in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and in the French Revolution (for the references supporting these assertions, please see the introduction). Today, the concept of militant atheism, an atheistic hostility to religion, is also prevalent in the writings of the New Atheists, as supported by information from several academic journals, among other academic literature, including, but not limited to (for all of the references, please see the "Today" section):

Furthermore, the media commonly uses labels the New Atheism movement as being an expression of militant atheism (please see the “Media” section of the article for the plethora of references that support this assertion). Nevertheless, there are some individuals who criticize the term, as demonstrated by the criticism of the term section of the article. These factors, per WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE, are all taken into account by the current introduction, which gained consensus from the community and was closed. Nevertheless, some individuals have expressed the need to re-write the introduction to better capture the essence of the article; as such, work on the Introduction has ensued and thus far, it has gained wide support from the community. I might add that a minority of individuals on the talk page have contested the article. In light of this fact, every reliable source present in the article contains the original quote from the reference used to verify the article content, so as to ensure WP:NPOV and avoid WP:SYNTH. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Coming here from ANI I would personally suggest this be merged with the RFC on splitting the article. They are IMO fairly related and while I guess it was done this way to reduce confusion, IMO the potential is for more confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Nil Einne, you're welcome to merge the RfC's if you'd like. Cheers, AnupamTalk 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support also would support splitting as an option and I agree with Nil that the RFCs should be merged. Currently conflates different meanings of the phrase. It's like combining visible mass of condensed droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the air together with internet-based use of computer technology stored on servers because they both happen to be termed Cloud. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Mojoworker, the fact that you do not agree with the term does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, there is an entire section of the article devoted to criticism of the term. Whether or not an article exists should not be based on original research, but on reliable sources, verifiability and notability, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that philosophers have written on the topic, evidenced by the multiple references in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You hope that helps? Are you serious? Did you even read what I said or do you just paste in stuff you've previously written? Your reply doesn't help at all since your response didn't address the issue I raised &mdash; yet another case where you evade the question and answer with something unrelated. I didn't say that I don't agree with the term, I said the article conflates two different meanings of the term. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Do you people even read the article before shouting "SYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTHSYNTH," as if saying it enough times will suddenly make the violation appear? Nowhere in the article does it say that contemporary atheist movements have anything in common with the violent ones of the USSR beyond one simple term, applied pejoratively. It even goes into detail with criticism of this term's use, things which have been brought up time and again in this talk page. Where is this "egregious" example of WP:SYNTHESIS to be found? Can anyone show us?Turnsalso (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is more edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. There is no problem for Wikipedia to have an article about "Militant Atheism" (which has been mentioned in many sources, and described like a concept or ideology). It is obvious enough that the sources have used "Militant Atheism" to refer to both marxist-leninist state atheism and "New Atheism". And there are sources which speak about both, like the following "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)...". (And even if the sources are doing a mistake in referring to multiple groups as "militant atheists", it is not our job to correct them.) And the article does no confusion between the marxist-leninists and the recent writers also referred as the "new atheists", it does not claim that there was a connection between those groups, the article documents how "Militant Atheism" has been used by sources. But nonetheless, the article can be improved to make the distinction between these groups even clearer. I also agree that these RFCs should be merged. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC comment. I don't see much reason to make a DAB page, because, as Anupam points out, there are plenty of reliable sources treating the term "militant atheism" as a notable entity in its own right. But there is probably a good reason to support a split into two articles, treating state atheism and new atheism differently. I'll explain my reasoning for that in the RfC above, about the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, on further reflection, I think I would support a DAB page, not least because of WP:BLP concerns about the way the page seems to cast aspersions on the New Atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per "...or maybe not", below, further reading and discussion now leads me to conclude that this page should be, at most, a DAB page. Full stop. The page as it is now misrepresents sources, violates WP:SYNTH, and violates WP:BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The term "militant atheism", just like "fine food", is debatable and poorly defined, usually defined in passing rather than formally. Googling "militant atheism" and announcing the results is just as useful as Googling "tall buildings". Militant atheism is not so much an idea as a descriptive phrase used in various ways at various times. Turning the article into a disambiguation page will make that clear to the reader, and will quickly direct the reader to the desired article. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Binksternet, the fact that you do not agree with the term does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, there is an entire section of the article devoted to criticism of the term. Whether or not an article exists should not be based on your own opinion, but on reliable sources, verifiability and notability, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that philosophers have written on the topic, evidenced by the multiple references in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You responded with a cut-n-paste reply which does not merit an answer, yet I wish to know how you concluded that it was a 'fact' that I "do not agree with the term"? I certainly know the term exists, and I don't disagree that its various meanings have been expressed, but I question the term's relevance across the disparate fractions of the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, philosophers such as Gandhi and Kant have written or spoken about "brute force", defining their take on it, but those definitions do not establish a topic that can stand alone. Rather, the term Brute force is addressed on Wikipedia by having a disambiguation page take the reader to the various relevant articles. The same with "militant atheism". The various meanings that have been put forward do not agree with each other, and they do not relate to the same people, movements or actions. That is why I favor a dab page for militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments above.Griswaldo (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Inclusion in the same article of material on the two disparate uses of the term "militant atheism" seems to me to be a blatant and bad-faith attempt to tar the reputation of peaceful "new atheists" by dishonestly equating them with communists and fascists. Most troubling is the fact that none of the sources used do so, so this appears to violate WP:SYNTH. I'm also concerned by Anupam's attempts to WP:OWN the article with his filibustering and attempts to intimidate other editors by misrepresenting statements of the mediating administrator. I'm having a very hard time assuming good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support turning this into a disambiguation page. For reasons I wrote elsewhere: "...the fundamental concept of this article is flawed. 'Militant atheist' is something that people accuse other people of, and it seems to have a different meaning depending on the situation and who's saying it. It is not a movement or a theory. It's a description or an accusation. It will be very difficult to achieve consensus on the exact meaning of what is essentially a vague turn of phrase." - JRheic (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the term "atheism" could be "a vague turn of phrase" if it is not properly defined. Does it mean those opposed to God or those who don't care there is no God? Etc. Geremia (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose The continual push to split or delete this article amounts to POV pushing. The term is widely used, and there is no need to dilute the article, or delete it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a split, using this page as a DAB. After all the hard work that has been done to collect an impressive array of references, all of which use the phrase "militant atheism" or something similar, there is still no evidence of a coherent whole, or a consistent concept to which that label is applied. There is a coincidence of terminology, but that is all, and at the core of the article lies a synthesis that constructs a phantom THING out of that coincidence. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 23:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article clearly passes WP:N and the sources sustain a stand alone article. "Support" positions citing SYNTH have not been elucidated nor are they sustainable. We must follow the sourcing. Whether we try to hide Militant Atheism in a section, or scatter it to the 4 Wiki winds, sooner or later Militant Atheism will return because of the numerous sources. – Lionel (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Georgia also passes WP:N, but look at Georgia. Which is the primary usage of militant atheism? For decades it would NOT have been state atheism, then "state atheism" became almost the only usage -- until Madalyn Murray O'Hair. And now...?--JimWae (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (after ec) Also: the sources very rarely (some self-published ones) treat the two as the same topic - and when they do it is to rhetorically link one as leading to the other --JimWae (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)WP:SYNTH because this entry combines sources that utilize this term in different ways. It is original research plain and simple. Entries are meant to be about cohesive subjects. If you want to claim that the entry is about a term, and that the term has many meanings then see WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Also consider that there are no sources about this "term," there are only sources that utilize the term, and again do so differently. The only viable entries about terms are ones that have sources that actually discuss terms, as opposed to merely using terms. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect User:Griswaldo, there are several sources that define the concept and I have listed them in my comment here. They can also be viewed in the Concepts section. Individuals who favor splitting the article here do not take into account that philosophers HAVE defined the concept of militant atheism and moreover, the reliable sources corroborate one another, as I demonstrated above. I will add that the article on Christianity does mention both the Crusades and the founding of the World Council of Churches. Does this constitute synthesis? I will answer my own rhetorical question with a "no" and this is because they are linked by the same religion/ideology. In the same fashion, the Application of the well defined concept of militant atheism also differs, while the concept remains the same. I hope this clears things up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources clearly discuss Militant Atheism substantially. Citing SYNTH is absurd. Let's just call this what it is: WP:DONTLIKE. – Lionel (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support split or disambiguation of some kind, but have no strong opinion on how it should be carried out. It seems to me that a general principle of Wikipedia is that an article should be about a topic, rather than about a pile of different topics; Mojoworker's point about "cloud" and JimWae's point about "Georgia" adequately refute Anupam's contention that there must be only one article because different sources use the same term to mean different things. Throwing this unrelated material together is obviously intended to suggest that disliking religion is the same thing as persecuting religious people, which violates WP:NPOV. Or, in short, "per Tryptofish." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that disambiguation is NOT an option per WP:DABCONCEPT. This title can remain as a header for a broad concept or list article, but the "disambiguation" of this page would be a violation of disambiguation policy. bd2412  T 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a guideline and not a policy. That said I, and others, clearly don't agree with your interpretation of the guideline and its applicability here. There is no "general concept." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect User:Griswaldo, there are several sources that define the concept of militant atheism and I have listed them in my comment here, above. The scholarly references can also be viewed in the Concepts section in the mainspace of the article. Individuals who favor splitting the article here do not take into account that philosophers HAVE defined the concept of militant atheism and moreover, the reliable sources corroborate one another, as I demonstrated above. Appealing to WP:SYNTH is nonsensical when no synthesis is being made. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, militant atheism is atheism that is in some sense militant. There is not an album or a band or a book to be distinguished from this concept. The key attribute of a disambiguation page is that it gives people the correct link that they intended to search for. If someone says "Joe Smith was from Georgia" or "Joe Smith was an expert on Mercury" you don't know in the first example whether they meant the country or the state, or in the second whether they meant the planet, the element, the god, or the car. In each case, however, the link can be researched and fixed, there being one correct answer. If someone says "Joe Smith was an expert on Militant atheism", there likely can be no correct answer from among the links, meaning that the topic is not actually ambiguous, but merely encompasses a number of subtopics. We do not disambiguate terms like "militant atheism" for the same reason that we don't have a disambiguation page at Christianity or Islam, despite the wide variety of forms each takes. bd2412  T 02:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it is incorrect to say that anyone else does or does not agree with my "interpretation" of the policy - prior to my comment, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the policy here, or of the rules governing disambiguation in general. This is not the place for such a discussion, since determinations about the correct interpretation of disambiguation policy should be made on the policy page of the disambiguation project. This is comparable to a "featured article" discussion. If you started a discussion on this page about making this a featured article, and fifty people agreed (without consulting the FA guidelines) that it was featured article material, it would still be incorrect to add the FA tag to the page based solely on that talk page discussion. bd2412  T 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite surprised that you continue to refer to this guideline as a policy. Have you read what it says at the top of the guideline page?
 * "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
 * Yet you present your application of this guideline as if it were simply fact, and must be followed. I appreciate your interpretation that this guideline is applicable here here but I don't agree with it. You say this entry is like "Christianity," and I say that's where you are missing some subtleties here. A subject like Christianity does not need to be disambiguated because people understand that its various sub categories all fit under the same umbrella. Yes Roman Catholicism isn't exactly the same as Presbyterianism but they are both Christian because they share some core beliefs and practices in a manner that put them in the same subfamily of religion. Scholars and non-scholars understand this fact. Yet Soviet state atheism and the ideas espoused by the New Atheists are not understood to "share some core beliefs and practices" in a manner that puts them in the same subfamily of atheism. Certainly not by scholars. You could make the case that the conservative Christians who are also culture warriors believe that these concepts are related in that manner. That may be true, but we don't write encyclopedias based on what is politically expedient for one minority group.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assessment of administrator, User:BD2412 - you hit the nail on the head. Just as the articles on Christianity and Islam cover different forms of a concept/ideology/religion, so does militant atheism. For example, the article on Christianity covers both the Crusades, as well as the formation of the World Council of Churches in the twentieth century, because both ideas are an expression of Christianity; the application is different. The same is true for militant atheism, which is a well defined academic concept, which can manifest itself in varying degrees. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam, please stop trying to add authority to your arguments by pointing out that someone you agree with is an administrator. In the context of this discussion bd2412 is an editor just like the rest of us. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I agree that my admin status is of no matter with respect to my views about what should be done with this article. Second, let me make myslef clear that I could care less whether this article is deleted, redirected, split up, or otherwise disposed of. The sole concern that I have come here to express is that it is not appropriate for disambiguation. Slapping a disambig tag on a page for which incoming links are likely to be unfixable will only create a headache for disambiguators and lead to a whole new discussion process on the disambig project, which history suggests will result in either a different article or some sort of index ending up at this space anyway. Whatever is done with this space, can we avoid creating unnecessary arguments over policies (or "guidelines" arrived at after extensive community discussion) unrelated to the substance of the article? bd2412  T 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose splitting or making it into disambiguation page because "militant atheism" is a very common concept with a well-defined meaning (see User:Anupam's comments above). The article currently meets WP:RS and WP:V, and it does not violate WP:SYNTH. Geremia (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Militant atheism is very much NOT a well-defined concept. Not a single source gives a definition of "militant atheism", nor does this article. All any source does is say what is one or two ways of being a militant atheisT. Baginni, eg, calls hostility to religion "militant". One could call a flower pretty, but "flowery" does not define "pretty", though it can be one way of being pretty. The sources given give different ways atheists might be militant - hostility to all religion, desire to control or eliminate religion, a belief that society would be better without religion, some tendencies (which are a matter of degree, not of kind), (and even arguing vehemently) - but none even propose that they are giving complete characteristics that would distinguish militant atheisTs from all other atheisTs. --JimWae (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As an orthodox Jew, this has affected my community for some time now. I believe the article is well researched, and I know it on a personal level. I believe the people who want it deleted would only want that due to the term causing them personal offense. Again, the article is well researched, and I know this because it has affected those very close to me.Jwaxman1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Are you saying both state atheism and New atheists have harmed your community? This article treats them as if they were two equal-sized horns of the same devil. It does not distinguish the two, thus trivializing the suffering & persecution in the USSR--JimWae (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great turn of phrase! Well said. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:CONCEPTDAB: A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. A concept may not be reducible to a lexical entry, but since "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" what matters is whether RS can sustain an article explaining how the concept is discussed in various sources. The aim of a concept article is never to dictate a single "definition", but to inform the reader of the full range of discourse on the topic. Anupam demonstrates the availability of RS above. Any specific problems within the article should be addressed, but deficiency in the quality or completeness of an article is not grounds for its deletion or reduction to a dab or redirect. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * what matters is whether RS can sustain an article explaining how the concept is discussed in various sources. Indeed, but that's exactly the problem, because there are no reliable sources that "explain how the concept is discussed in various sources." There are just various usages in various sources. We cannot combine them ourselves and create our own discussion of how they are used in different sources. That is a violation of WP:SYNTH rather clearly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I see this as a misinterpretation of what synth says. It could be used to impugn almost any article that covers a broad topic, such as Religion, Neoplatonism, Republic, or any number of philosophical or literary concepts that exist in humanistic discourse rather than as a scientific topic with a technical or material reality. Synth says that sources should not be put together to advance an original interpretation, or in a way not intended by the sources. Simply representing the discourse of "militant atheism", that is, describing the various ways in which the concept is deployed, is not a synthesis: it's what any article on a concept does. The intro will be a summary of what the article says, but a summary is not a synthesis in the WP sense. Avoiding synth does not require the existence of a single source that represents or brings together all possible meanings of the concept at hand; otherwise, an article could just be a summary of a single source—but we tag single-source articles, and require multiple sources for notability. I haven't examined this article closely enough to see whether there are synthetic or original passages; if there are, they should be edited. But the existence of faults in an article is not grounds for either its deletion or its reduction to a dab or redirect; it just means the article needs work. I've seen synthesized topics that required deletion, where two things are brought together, each with a body of largely non-overlapping scholarship brought together to make an original point, but this isn't one of them: the concept is frequently expressed in just these words, and as the guideline above (WP:CONCEPTDAB) indicates, being "broad, vague, abstract or highly conceptual" is not a reason to reduce a concept article to a dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This article should really be deleted or renamed, since "militant atheism" is just a juxtaposition of two words that does not have an established meaning. But that may not be feasible at the moment, and splitting the article is better than allowing this smear campaign against atheism to continue. Hans Adler 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. Several philosophers have defined the concept of militant atheism, as I, and others have pointed out. You can see all the original definitions by looking at my comment above, or by looking at the concepts section of the article. Every single one of the references corroborate one another. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the references you point to do talk about militant atheism, but none present definitions of it, nor do they even attempt to - they are merely giving flavours and tendencies. AND when they talk about it, they focus on one or the other - state atheism or new atheists - not both at once.--JimWae (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is where you are wrong. Kerry S. Walters, Julian Baggini, and Karl Rahner do not discuss state atheism or new atheism. They are simply defining an ideology. You can look at the references above, and see for yourself. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not give definitions, they give partial lists of distinguishing tendencies within people - and they either focus on people called new atheists (Walters makes a direct slap at Weinberg) OR on state atheism, and do not say that what they present is sufficient to define both new atheists and state atheisms--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to get the article to say that Dawkins and Stalin, for exxmple, share a common ideology (see your comment above), that they are reading from the same playbook, is the fundamental problem with this article. --JimWae (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Split into two articles: Militant atheism (state atheism) and Militant atheism (new atheism) or something similar, in much the same way as Colon (punctuation) and Colon (rhetoric). Or merge the whole thing with Antitheism... Yunshui (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the concept of "Militant Atheism" (not about just describing two simple words), and there were enough sources shown earlier, which explained that "Militant Atheism" is used to describe atheism which is in some way hostile towards religion. This is not an WP:SYNTH issue, and it is an obvious fact that "Militant Atheism" has been applied to multiple groups by sources, so it is relevant to mention them in an article called "Militant Atheism". And there are sources which speak about both, like the following: "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)...". The article does no confusion between state atheism and new atheism, and does not claim they were connected, the distinction between them looks clear enough. The article documents how the sources have used "militant atheism". But nonetheless, the distinction can be made more clearer, by improving the lead introduction. (And new articles titled "Militant atheism (state atheism)" and "Militant atheism (new atheism)" would probably end up merged with "State Atheism" and "New Atheism", which do not discuss about "Militant Atheism" as their main topic.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Militant atheism" is not a term. In most cases it is used synonymously with fucking annoying atheism, so it makes no sense to have an article about this combination of words. That leaves "militant atheism" as a descriptive title. As such it is POV because militancy has strong connotations of extreme violence which are far from being fair when applied to the people you are trying to smear with this article. Hans Adler 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a section called "Concepts" in the article, which deals with this issue, but "Militant Atheism" has been described in sources as a doctrine, concept or ideology, and there are also the sources mentioned by Anupam earlier, so it is more than just two simple words. But nonetheless, the article states that the use of "militant atheism" to refer to the recent writers also known as the "new atheists" has also been pejorative, and there is no problem in this case (it could had been a POV issue if it was used as a title for the main article about "New Atheism", but the main topic of this article is not "New Atheism", this article is about "Militant Atheism"), and there are anyway articles on Wikiepdia dealing with pejorative terms (like "Papist" or "Islamofascism", which were mentioned in previous discussions). Cody7777777 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a problem here is distinguishing between describing a reality (is there actually "militant atheism" at large in the land?) and a discourse ("is there a concept of "militant atheism" floating around in contemporary or historical discourse?"). That's what makes it hard to write decent articles on such slippery topics (see the sentence from WP:CONCEPTDAB I qoted above). As far as I know, in the U.S. at least atheists are not engaging in "militant" actions. However, there is a great deal of talk about "militant atheism." The subject of this article is the discourse, as it is with any other concept. The existence of this article need not endorse the actuality of "militant atheism" (well, unless RS show such a thing to exist); however, the article should inform the reader who's just read the phrase somewhere and looks up "militant atheism" what this concept is about. We can't suppress the description of a verifiable concept because the concept may be erroneous; that's what guidelines such as WP:UNDUE are for. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe - You're right. The big problem with the present article is precisely that it fails to acknowledge those niceties. Right there in the first sentence it says that there is a reality called militant atheism, and by the second sentence we are asked to believe that a bunch of objectively identifiable militant atheists do such-and-such, and are responsible for so-and-so. Above, I said I supported the move towards a DAB page or something similar. On reflection,  I'd be happy to see an article on "militant atheism", as long as it was an honest one that acknowledged it as a phrase with many meanings (and indeed some potentially interesting cultural connotations), and carefully avoided turning it into a bogeyman founded on nothing more than a terminological coincidence. The recent history of the article, however, does not make me hopeful that such an adult and honest approach will last long. I fear that the article will continue to be used as a coatrack by those who feel compelled to use Wikipedia to push a viewpoint. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see your point. Some articles require sophisticated writing and editing in order to honor certain WP principles; that's sometimes a difficult task to reconcile with the "anyone can edit" ideal. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to User:Hans Adler, he is simply incorrect. Organisations, such as the League of Militant Atheists attests to the fact that this word is not exclusively used pejoratively. Moreover, over hundred references in the article discuss the term militant atheism in this historical content. It is unacceptable to delete this article per WP:N. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Subject is notable and established by sources. Article is not WP:SYNTH. Also per WP:CONCEPTDAB. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Georgia is also notable, but is a DAB. The sources focus on one area or the other; they do not treat militant atheism with the scope of both state atheism and outspoken atheists.--JimWae (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. I think I should point this out: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I posted notices at Wikiproject:Religion and Wikiproject:Atheism I'm not going to start pointing fingers, but I would like to say that WikiProject Conservatism has no relevance to this entry's subject matter at all. Could Lionel please explain why he posted there? Perhaps could he also explain why he wrote - "Don't miss out on the discussion of the year!" Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While were are at it, what does this entry have to do with the LDS? Why did you post your message at WikiProject:Latter Day Saint movement? I understand Wikiproject Christianity, and more specifically Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, because at least they relate to the state atheism materials to some degree or another. But the LDS? Why not the Wikiprojects of more liberal protestant sects?Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple; to ensure that the right kind of people would vote. How many people associated with such projects have supported, and how many have opposed? Between that and the arrival of suspicious new SPAs, can the opposition be taken seriously? I think not. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I think, but I wanted editors here to know what's going on. And I have asked at WP:ANI for administrators to evaluate this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support stubbing/dabbing: This article conflates two different concepts. There may be some need to retain the article to clearly delineate the separate concepts by briefly summarizing the main articles and adding some higher level context.  We don't need an extensive article which rehashes the particulars of state atheism and new atheism, while simultaneously conflating the two different topics. aprock (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Something isn't right about this article as currently structured, although it's hard to put my finger on it. It seems just a bit too eager to link Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to Stalin and Chairman Mao. It's as if our article on fascism stated: "Fascism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology. People who have been described as fascists include Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh." That is true, and even verifiable, but it leaves something to be desired nonetheless. MastCell Talk 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You put your finger on exactly what I was thinking, and explained it much better than I could. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put. And I'll add that, in my opinion, the article itself exemplifies exactly the perjurative use of the term "militant atheism" that's in dispute.Jkhwiki (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support Long overdue. The issues raised here have been consistently ignored in discussion. Many editors are simply voting, flatly asserting that the article is fine, but without addressing these fundamental problems. Chiefly, for all the sources Anupam has presented, none use the same scope in applying "militant atheism" to both New Atheism and persecution in the USSR, as our article does. Most recently, I pointed this out on Sep 15, with no response, but I also raised the issue earlier, including back in July, on the 14th (no response), and the 20th. And that's just me... don't forget JimWae, Griswaldo, ArtifexMahem, SNALWIMBA, Binksternet and others, as well as editors driven off the page by the IDHT and OWN attitude so prevalent here. Instead of honest discussion, we end up plagued with SPAs and canvassing (which I'll note isn't the first time). The fact is, these problems are unsolvable, because at the root of the article is a synthesis of sources, either discussing a limited context, or not defining the juxtaposition at all. WP:NOTDICT is clear: There are two concepts here, one of very real and horrendous persecution of theists by state atheism in the USSR, and one of a small group of scientists and authors who speak out against religious terrorism and put up billboards. That they are labelled with the same brush by different people is no more cause for a single article than for "cloud", or "georgia". I don't think a disambig page is the best option, but it's better than what we have now. I would prefer splitting content between state atheism and New Atheism, or Militant atheism (state atheism), or one of the other proposals mentioned here. Either way, the article is a coatrack of disparate concepts, synthesized to make a point about public atheism which no single ref supports, and it needs to go.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The RfC is worded poorly. It asks "Should this article be split, or changed to a disambig page?",   and the replies are generally either "Support" or "Oppose", and it is not clear what "Support" is supporting:  Splitting?  Disambig?  Either?  Better would be to recast the RfC as a yes/no question, so that Support/Oppose have some meaning.  I gather, from reading the responses, that the RfC is trying to ask:  "Should this article be eliminated either entirely or partially (by moving some or all of the content into other articles such as .... )?"   --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added an alternative phrasing to the top of the RfC .. I hope it clarifies it for uninvolved editors. --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Agree with Jess and others. This article just uses a no well defined umbrella term to link into one article very different things. From political movements to philosophical musing ending with its use by the press to describe vocal atheist in current times. The concepts section is laughable and schizophrenic at the same time and ultimately it is the root of the problem with this article. Militant atheism is whatever the writer using the term wished it to be as there is no clear definition. You could make equally strong cases for assigning the term to anyone making a public statement of being an atheist or to someone actively killing priests with the help of a sponsor state.--LexCorp (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Three articles on a given topic are one too many. I'm referring to State atheism, Militant atheism, and New atheism.  There is just too much overlap.  We are not doing the readers of WP any favors by such multiplicity.  I'd recommend eliminating Militant atheism and merging its contents into other articles.  (And I agree that "militant atheism" is indeed a subject discussed by sources ... but it could simply be section in one of the other articles).   --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - After reading most of this section, I think it should be a dab page. A few links to State, New, etc. atheism, each with a small sentence describing it is what will serve the reader best.  A person who comes here after reading about Stalin is looking for something totally different than someone researching Dawkins.  It's even a bit of a BLP issue for the ones alive.  "Dawkins and Stalin are two types of miltant atheists."  is one way to summarize this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - splitting this article in multiple revelent articles is the only way to bring some sanity. There is no-way there will be consensus achieved in having a single article, which represents multiple things historically. This article had became WP:COATRACK for religious POV. 131.107.0.81 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I created an account just to oppose this slanted discussion. Any educated individual is going to realize that there are different degrees of militant atheism and the article is sectioned off to show it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealdowntome123 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling that some of the "oppose"s feel that Dawkins is on the same spectrum as Stalin. Kinda like having a giant army is what separates state atheism from new atheism.  Yikes.  This is convincing me even more that this article should just be a dab. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is something very fishy about Nealdowntome123's contribution to this discussion. Please see User talk:Nealdowntome123 where I've broached the subject with him/her. I suspect either sock or meat puppetry going on here.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy enough to discount the new user's contribution as he did not provide any leverage for his argument. There's no need to bother about WP:SPI, yet. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support splitting the content, preferably into existing articles. Mixing Soviet-style state-driven 'militant atheism' with modern activism-style 'militant atheism' is like writing an article that says 'Paris is the capital of France, and is also an American celebrity and Hilton empire heir'. The concepts are distinct and unrelated. As a neutral editor to this dispute, I will also point out that I've read through the majority of this talk page and I'm gravely concerned with efforts by particular editors to attempt to suppress newly forming consensus on the basis that prior consensus is somehow sacred, WP:CANVASSing and possibly even bringing in WP:MEAT-puppets. This kind of conduct really is unacceptable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, the example mentioned earlier "Paris is the capital of France, and is also an American celebrity and Hilton empire heir" does not appear to apply here, since in the first case it refers to a city, while in the other case it refers to a person. In this case, "Militant Atheism" refers to a concept or ideology, which has been used to refer to atheism which is in some way hostile to religion. Cynwolfe has explained clearly enough why this is not a synthesis issue, and as said before, it is obvious enough that "Militant Atheism" has been applied by sources, to multiple groups, because of some hostility to religion, and these groups have sought in some way to promote atheism (and there are sources which mention both state atheists, and the recent writers also known as the "new atheists", "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)..."). If the sources are doing a mistake, it is not our job to correct them (this is simply a fact that happens in the world, and I do not really understand why it cannot be documented on Wikipedia). Also, the articles about "New Atheism" and "State Atheism" do not discuss about "Militant Atheism" as their main topic (and splitting the article would also make it more difficult for readers interested in learning more about this topic and its uses). (I do not like to give such examples, but Wikipedia also has an article titled "Fuck", which is not about some concept or ideology, it just explains the multiple and unrelated uses of that expression, many which are negative uses.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed concerning "Fuck." Do we see discussions on the talk page in favor of its removal? After all, WP:NOTADICTIONARY! Multiple uses of a word is WP:SYNTH, right? Turnsalso (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is it's not like Paris, France and Paris Hilton. Instead you're saying it's more like Paris, France and Paris, Texas.  Got it. aprock (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This example also does not seem to apply here. The concept of "Militant Atheism" has been described by sources as referring to atheism which is in some way hostile to religion. I have not seen yet a radically different description about it. A "Militant Atheism" which is not hostile to religion and does not seek to promote atheism could be a different ideology of "Militant Atheism", just like Paris, the capital of France, is a different city from Paris in Texas. But anyway, articles about concepts or ideologies are not treated quite the same way like those about cities or people. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a much better analogy was put forth by MastCell just a little way up: "Fascism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology. People who have been described as fascists include Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a very good example either, since Rush Limbaugh does not look like an important fascist. The recent writers Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, also known as the "new atheists", have been identified as militant atheists who have an influential activity in promoting atheism. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As editors like me, who have not previously been following this page closely, can see, there's a lot of POV judgment that goes into saying that the many verifiable sources that call Limbaugh a fascist are POV (which they are!) but the sources that call the new atheists "militant" are just as neutral as those that use the word to describe Stalin or Mao (which they are not). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just note that there is not even prior consensus --- there has never been any consensus on this article --- just prior discussions that were closed without consensus.Jkhwiki (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:TechnoSymbiosis, thanks for your comments. I would like to bring up the fact that if thoroughly looked at the talk page, you would also notice the several single purpose accounts that are used to support the other side of the debate as well, as well as canvassing efforts (not to say that this makes it right). For example,, , , , et. al are single purpose accounts who have participated in these discussions, championing deletion and/or splitting of this article. User:Abhishikt canvassed another editor for aid, as recently did User:Griswaldo, who also made threats to the reviewing administrator of this page (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two). Moreover, User:Devilishlyhandsome, another single purpose account, made real-life threats related to this issue. User:Lionelt simply informed WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects that this relevant RfC was occurring only after User:Griswaldo already contacted WikiProject Atheism. Moreover, recent consensus was formed on several issues, such as the Introduction and Word Razor, as confirmed by the reviewing administrator of the article, who was mediating issues between the two parties. I do not bring these issues up to point fingers, but to simply inform arriving editors that unnacceptable behaviour can be found on both sides of the debate. Once again, thanks for your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please correct your distortion. I did not "canvass another editor" which is what your text currently claimed. I notified Wikiproject:Atheism. If you want to argue that this is canvassing at least be accurate enough to say that I canvassed a WikiProject, not a person. Also, please stop claiming I made threats to another editor. If you, or MoP thinks that I have made threats then take it up on ANI, but continually smearing me with this claim as part of an argument is out of line. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Anupam, would you care to point out any instance of unnacceptable behavior on my part?Jkhwiki (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Jkhwiki, you haven't engaged in any unacceptable behaviour. Your contributions here are appreciated. I was simply pointing out that there are single purpose accounts, such as yourself, on both sides of the discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, that account of events is so seriously distorted, it's really difficult for me to assume good faith. Obhave is not a SPA by any stretch, Lionelt did not simply "inform WikiProject Christianity and its subprojects" - he picked a few he liked and informed those, including WikiProject Conservatism, Abhishikt did not canvass - he contacted a previously involved admin to ask for input, something which you've personally done multiple times, nor was Griswaldo canvassing when he posted a notice to this article's primary WikiProject about a public RfC. You've made so many errors, I'm having a hard time seeing them as simple mistakes and omissions. Please stop posting things like this. It doesn't make "your side" look more reasonable; it just makes it look like you have a "my side vs theirs" mentality, and are defending improper behavior by distorting the truth. That's not good.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the canvassing issue, I'll also mention in this discussion, what I said here. When Lionelt posted that comment, WP:WikiProject Conservatism was still listed as a project interested in this article, and it was listed along wth WP:WikiProject Christianity, WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WP:WikiProject Catholicism, and others, for some months. (And in my opinion most of them should remain mentioned, since it is obvious this article discusses about issues which also involve Christianity and other religions).We do not need to assume that editors interested about discussing this issue could be found only at WP:WikiProject Atheism or WP:WikiProject Religion, and the comments posted at the contacted WikiProjects were neutral (and if there are no interested editors at these WikiProjects, they will probably just ignore the notification). But we should probably just wait and see what the administrators think about this. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Support a split, if that is the way to sweep away this sorry mess. I've been away for a long time, but I note that my last contribution to Wikipedia was none other than a comment on this talk page, 18 months ago! The article was bad then, and in some ways it's worse now - and certainly the shenanigans surrounding it is even more disgraceful now than it was then. The article looks good - it is now dressed up in an impressive array of "reliable" and "verifiable" sources and footnotes, all the trappings of scholarship. (In fact, well over half the text is in the footnotes, which is ridiculous, as someone said above.) But what is behind this "scholarship"? It is all phony, bringing together an array of disparate things that have nothing in common except that they all happen to use the word "militant" alongside the word "atheism". There is no definition, there is no agreement on a unified concept, there are just a couple of words. I assume a lot of the article is the result of some googling and synthesis of a wide range of stuff that happens to use those two words, but there is no substance in the conflation of the communist/atheist regimes and today's "new atheists". Each of those on their own merits an article - and indeed each of them has one. So why is this article here? I conclude that its main purpose is to act as a platform for pushing an antiatheist agenda. This has to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advocacy on behalf of the victims of Stalin/Mao/Dawkins. Gnusmas (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: If this article becomes a disambiguation page, who will take responsibility for fixing all the incoming links? bd2412  T 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I !voted for dab, and so I will take the task if necessary. Certainly, I will help. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * about 98 articles link to this article - only 13 of which seem to be about state atheism. About 6 of the articles are redirects. A very doable task--JimWae (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My concern, of course, was that the change would be carried out, and the mess would be left for others to clean up (as has happened with similar decisions in the past). bd2412  T 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of those links are due only to having the Template:Irreligion or one of these other 4 templates --JimWae (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the old drafts and updated the irreligion template. aprock (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Because this article is up for deletion and conversion into a disambiguation page, I have requested that this RfC be included in the deletion lists of relevant projects. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So what's the head count? Might be good to know for further discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19 individuals support some kind of split thus far. 12 individuals oppose any kind of split and wish to retain the article in its present form. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a disambiguation and moving text on state atheism into the many other articles that already cover the topic (such as State atheism). Btw, a simple head count is not the way to see if consensus has been established. Several "votes" are given with reasoning being WP:N - but WP:N has no relevance to whether or not a page ought to be a disambig page. Also, nobody has presented even one reliable source that treats "miltant atheism" with the same wild scope that this article has been doing, (sources focus on state atheism or arguers) so "votes" based on "it is well-sourced" also have no foundation. "Militant atheism" has hurt my community" does not address any issues, and is also not a cogent argument. --JimWae (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support split, disam, et al. Having been over the "sources", again again, I still, still, find nothing but WP:SYNTH. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support with the condition that it's a disambiguation to State Atheism with a relevant subsection added to the State Atheism article. Because let's face it, in very single instance of State Atheism, militant atheism has been rampant in one form or another. They are essentially the same. Militant Atheism is a reality. It exists. The slippery, slimey, sanctimonious bunch who want Atheism to have a shinney, scientific, United Federation of Planets reputation can't have it, because history speaks for itself. Take the intellectually honest route, not the Atheist vs Christian route, or "because I'm an Athiest Atheism is flawless" route. Do what's best to educate people, not eradicate the black spots on your worldview's respective histories. If people are just trying to hide the past (shame on you, go hang out with the Holocaust Deniers) then I Strongly Oppose. --Jesspiper (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Jesspiper, you stated that ,"Militant atheism is a reality. It exists." Nevertheless, you voted to merge this article with "state atheism." Because militant atheism is an identifiable concept, which philosophers have defined (see the concepts section of the article and note the reliable sources therein), then why does not "militant atheism" deserve its own article? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources do NOT contain even one definition - they are just characterizations and observations on ways to be called a "militant atheist". The sources also focus on either state atheism or atheist debaters - they do not take the wild scope of this article and lump the two groups together. --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider State Atheism and Militant Atheism to be one and the same. I'm not saying Militant Atheism doesn't deserve its own article, but it also seems at home with State Atheism. As long as it's handled honestly, I could go either way. But like I said, I'm Strongly Opposed to any merger or disambiguation if this is just about the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of people not being able to admit these historical truths.--Jesspiper (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Jesspiper, thanks for your response! You stated that "I'm not saying Militant Atheism doesn't deserve its own article." However, you voted in support to turn this article into a disambiguation page. What kind of things should be retained at this article, in your opinion? Also, if militant atheism is the same as state atheism, can an individual not hold the position of militant atheism? Can only a state hold that position? I hope you are understand my point here. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say support, but with very specific conditions. Calling someone like Daniel Dennett "militant" is utterly preposterous. That's the part of the article that is useless. They are called New Atheists, not Militant ones. Writing books and doing TV interviews doesn't make one militant. It also takes the spotlight away from the true and objective danger that Atheists and Atheism represents: when they gain governance over other people. That's when the true militancy happens. Sure people call them that, but that's just ignorant in light of the actual militant atrocities comitted by Atheists in the Spanish Red Terror, for example. That is militancy. Most, if not all, of these militant acts were carried out in Atheist States or during events that aimed at creating them. Sure individuals can be militant in ideology, but true militancy happens when they band together and try to seize or gain governance. Then the rivers of blood flow, as history has shown over and over.--Jesspiper (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: More than half of the text is about state atheism anyway. So move that text to state atheism. Also, it looks like synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is forbidden.-- В и к и  T   07:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Militant Atheism" has been described by sources as being in some way hostile to religion and in some way seeking to promote Atheism. I have not seen yet a radically different description shown about this topic (as one claiming that "Militant Atheism" is not hostile to religion and does not seek to promote atheism). "State Atheism" is not the same concept, even if many "state atheists" were also "militant atheists", and there is no description claiming that "Militant Atheism" can apply only to "State Atheism". It is obvious enough that "Militant Atheism" has been applied by sources, to multiple groups (not just to "state atheists"), because of some hostility to religion, and these groups have sought in some way to promote atheism (and there are sources which mention both "state atheists" and "new atheists", "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)..."). Also, Cynwolfe has explained clearly enough why this is not a synthesis issue, in his earlier post. And if the sources are doing a mistake to call the "new atheists" (who have an influential activity in promoting atheism) as "militant atheists", it is not our job to correct them, and the article just documents how the sources have used "Militant Atheism". (It is not claimed in the article, that the "new atheists" are also "state atheists", but an article about "Militant Atheism" cannot ignore the fact that the "new atheists" were also identified as "militant atheists".) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about concepts, not about the history of the usage of a term - as if every usage of the term were pointing out a continuation of the same "ideological tradition". --JimWae (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there was enough evidence that this has been described as an ideology, concept or cause. But, regardless if you want to call it a concept, or not, the topic of "Militant Atheism" has been described in sources as being in some way hostile to religion (and the sources do not specify that "Militant Atheism" has been applied only when hostility was done only by "state atheists" or only by "new atheists", and there is no radically different description of this topic claiming that it is not hostile to religion, and we do not need to assume there is one). And there were sources shown which speak about both. (Also, Wikipedia does actually have some articles just about words, there is even an article titled "Fuck".) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. This article is telling the TRUTH of what happened during the times of Soviet USSR. This would be very offensive to me if you removed it and I would complain to the higher authority of wikipedia. I had family memebers sent to Siberia and killed because of their faith; those devil incarnate dogs. You cannot throw history aside. The people of Russia endured so many horrible atrocities that it is inumerable to tell. They blew up and dessecrated churches, took the relics of saints and holy people and threw them away, killed millions of innocent people including priests, bishops, deacons, monks, and Patriarch "Tikhon of Moscow" by subjecting him to go under house arrest and did not feed him (he died their). You cannot kick history to the side, this is what happened and the poeple need to be educated on this matter of what happened so it does not happen again. The Defender of Orthodoxy (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The question being asked is not about removing content from wikipedia - it is about structuring the content into separate articles so that the article(s) will be more focussed. There are several articles with overlapping material, such as State atheism, Religion in the Soviet Union, Soviet anti-religious legislation, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Persecution of Christians in Warsaw Pact countries. Those articles would benefit from having some of the material from this article AND those articles and that material would still be reachable by having Miltant atheism as a disambiguation page.--JimWae (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:JimWae, what you do not understand is that state atheism is not an ideology, whereas militant atheism is, and the latter influenced the policies in atheist states. And honestly, you cannot delete an article because you disagree with what the philosophers have written on on the topic. The subject is notable and we simply must state what information in reliable sources states, whether we agree with what is being said or not. This is simply the role of Wikipedia. Even if this RfC does close as a split, the concepts that various philosophers have written about the ideology still must be reported here. This is in accordance with WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." With regards, AnupamTalk 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam, your comments indicate that it is "your understanding" that there is one underlying ideology for both state atheism and atheist activists, and that this has been guiding your editing activities here. It is your presumption that there is such an underlying ideology - it is not borne out by reliable sources; it is your SYNTHESIS. WP:N does not have any relevance to whether or not a page should be a disambiguation page. Nobody is proposing the deletion of material. The proposal is to have separate articles with a clearer focus - not a blurred blending which presumes a common ideology that reliable sources do not present.--JimWae (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam, we have no sources that claim militant atheism is an ideology that informs the policies of "atheist states". That is your own creation. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The following sources refer to the ideology, concept or cause of "Militant Atheism". But as also said earlier, the sources mentioned by Anupam, describe the topic of "Militant Atheism" (as some way of hostility to religion) without limiting it only to "state ateists" or only to "new atheists". Cody7777777 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodheart does not define "militant atheism", he only uses the term to describe Dawkins and state atheism. Just like "brute force" or "fine dining", the term remains ambiguous. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Cody7777777, they do not refer to the ideology, concept or cause of "Militant Atheism", they do use combinations of the words "ideology, concept, or, cause, of, militant, atheism". Why? Because those are the words you searched for. Word searches do not make something WP:V. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While these sources do not discuss in detail about this ideology, concept, or cause of "Militant Atheism", they still show the existence of such a thing. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What the sources show is that writers use "Militant atheism" as an umbrella pejorative, not that any such thing actually exists. I'd suggest rewriting the article to reflect that, but I'd guess that it would run afoul of WP:DICTDEF eldamorie (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support some kind of split here. Sorry if I'm missing some key piece of information, but I don't see any scholarly sources treating Soviet State Atheism and modern Dawkinism as the same concept. This strikes me as just as odd as someone writing an article titled Militant Christianity that contained sections on Richard I of England and Jerry Falwell. (Sorry if I just planted that idea in someone's mind). Mark Arsten (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The following sources speak about both "If Dawkins were consistent in his condemnation of violence and unreason of religion, he would also have to face the reality of homicidal tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins, who believes that the world would be better off without religion(page 38)...", "Dawkins, Hitchens, and their new, militant atheist buddies are promoting an intolerant agenda that would make Joseph Stalin proud. We must be clear on this — this is not an overstatement.", "militant atheism in such forms as European Communism has largely disappeared. It is left to Richard Dawkins and other writers to keep the cause alive.". However, as also said before, it looks obvious enough that the "state atheists" and "new atheists" who were identified as "militant atheists", where both in some way hostile to religion, and sought in some way to promote atheism. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some good research skills you have there. However, on balance, it looks to me like the majority of high-quality sources treat them as mostly separate concepts. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the appreciation. I admit there aren't many sources discussing both "state atheists" and "new atheists", but unless there are some sources explicitly stating that the "Militant Atheism" followed by "new atheists" is a different concept from the "Militant Atheism" followed by "state atheists", I don't think we need to assume there are two different topics of "Militant Atheism" (which can exclude each other). It is of course true that the "state atheists" have used brutal methods to weaken religion and promote atheism, but the difference of methods used do not necessarily make it a different concept. The following source states that "The Fixed idea of the militant atheist is the religion-less society" (which shows a hostility to religion), to me it looks obvious enough that the "state atheists" and "new atheists", also identified as "militant atheists", followed in some way this idea (and this source, and also the sources which have described "Militant Atheism" as some sort of hostility to religion, have not stated that it is limited only to "state atheists" or only to "new atheists"). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the title of the paper in you are linking to above?  Who are the authors?  Have you read the Irish Quarterly review yet? aprock (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize the RFC has been closed, and I'm sorry for the delay in response, but I do not always have enough time for Wikipedia. However, I'll still try to give a short answer, without encouraging more discussion here. I have not read much from that review, but that part of the review appears to have been written by an Irish journalist named David Quinn, and it was a review for Richard Dawkins' book called "The God Delusion" (this can be checked here). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The way this article is currently formulated is a complete violation of WP:SYNTH, and conflates several different issues into one. Splitting and disambiguation should help solve some of the current editing disputes. 64.107.55.2 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is a minefield of POV and SYNTH issues.  Splitting it to more focused pages would make it easier to work on those problems.  Even more important is the fact that there's no evidence that scholars treat state atheism and new atheism as a single subject of study, so wikipedia shouldn't treat them that way either. Quale (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the article and reconsidering my position, I support splitting out those elements that can not properly be grouped together under a single heading according to neutral sources. So far as I can tell, someone could be a "militant" atheist in the sense of believing that religion is harmful, and at the same time be a pacifist, opposed to all forms of violence and oppression, even against legal prohibitions against the practice of religion. This would be almost the opposite of a "militant" atheist who didn't care whether religion was harmful or not, but sought to use force to suppress it. I would suggest keeping a short article on the use of the phrase as a slogan, as we have for culture of life. bd2412  T 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello User:BD2412, do you support the keeping of the concepts section, which discusses how philosophers have defined the concept, although not mentioning specific applications? Furthermore, the article never states that the New Atheist writers are militant atheists - it states that they have been called militant atheists, which is a statement of fact. This is made clear by the introduction, which states: "Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger." I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone else stated already by that logic you would have to include Georgia Bush in the article on Fascism. When someone deletes your addition you can explain to them that the article never states that George Bush is a fascist - it states that he has been called a fascist, which is a statement of fact. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know how much George Bush has contributed to "Fascism" (and if this is discussed, it might be better to be debated at Talk:Fascism), but the "new atheists" who have been identified as "militant atheists", have an influential activity in promoting atheism, and Richard Dawkins was also described as a "leader of militant atheism". Cody7777777 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those uses tend to be classifiable as propaganda rather than any manner of coherent concept. I would support having a brief entry on the use of the phrase as propaganda devised to elicit an emotional response, as with better dead than red or missile gap. bd2412  T 04:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support splitting and/or DAB. The term is not strongly defined and is used as a broad umbrella for distinct concepts. Most of the excellent material would be more useful at State atheism. The only sources discussing Stalin and Dawkins in the same breath seem to be either clear propaganda or actually arguing against conflation of the two distinct senses of "militant atheist". The former type run into obvious BLP issues, the latter would be evidence for disambiguating the term. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be split to distinguish between the state atheism practised by Communist countries, and the 'new atheism' seen in the past decade. In writing articles about this subject it is reasonable in discussion to look behind the topic in order to avoid being misled by mere terminological coincidences. On looking more closely we find that while the two concepts have in common their lack of belief in Gods and their denigration of religions, they are clearly objectively different in their motivations. The Communist state atheism was primarily a political approach, viewing religion as a potential rival power base controlling the mass of the population which needed to be suppressed and eliminated so that the population would act together in a drive towards Communism. The 'new atheism' is dominated by philosophy and science, and while some of those involved are vaguely on the left of politics (particulary Christopher Hitchens, to a small extent Richard Dawkins) this is clearly not the driving motivation of their opposition to religion which is rooted more in a scientific rationalism. While there are examples of non-Communist opposition to religion which could be seen as of a piece with Communist state atheism, for example Spanish Republican anti-clericalism in the 1930s, the new atheism is of a distinctly different approach. The Communists would not have accepted the scientific rationalism of the new atheists, believing that science was also a political tool (see Lysenkoism). Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. There seems to be little evidence that this is anything beyond synthesis - a common phrase used in very different contexts, rather than a term with any underlying meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I Think we're somewhere around 30 in favor of a split, and 13 in favor of keeping the current topic. It's hard to count, so I may have messed up a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Head count isn't particularly relevant. Rather it's the strength of the discussion, and adherence to core policy which really matters. aprock (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Make that 31 for most of the reasons stated above.  Since the concept of militant atheism has taken on a meaning separate from its historical, there should be separate pages to deal with each topic.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose We,the truth and the reality with reliable sources,are going to remove?,it means we are ignoring the facts and figures of the history,and giving no value to reliable sources.Our personal desires and thoughts do not meet with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia,though everyone is describing them into their own concept.When you violate to not accept contents of reliable sources,it means you are making wikipedia an unreliable encyclopedia,I think so.Be realistic and use common sense.Question is here that,we are looking mirror or mirror is looking us?. Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the point is that no reliable source conflates the two meanings of "militant atheism". Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support dab; this is an article about two topics, which are nowhere conflated with any source. There is no argument the "term" is notable; arguments against dab using that argument ignore that the term means two different things. Dab is necessary to differentiate the two. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support dab This is a mishmash of an article pulling together historical and modern concepts in a mix that looks suspiciously like OR Sophia ♫