Talk:State atheism/Archive 6

Source reformatting, suite.
Thanks for the source-formatting appreciation, much appreciated. That quite tedious work wasn't without purpose, though, as throughout the discussion above, I referred to the need for a source-by-source evaluation (to actually demonstrate that most of this article's sources in fact don't match the article claims (that the events it contains 'are' the topic-designation-categorisation its title denotes))... that cleanup is a first step in that process. And if all the sources do check out, then the result will just be a cleaner article... win-win, what. So cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 06:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) ''
 * I don't want to re-ignite a long exchange, just to summarize my opinion and then step back. IMO this could successfully and legitimately be either an article about the term State atheism, or about the phenomena covered by that term which is (roughly) promotion of atheism by the state, including instances of such.  The latter seems to have been chosen for this article, the former would involve nuking the article down to about 1/4 of it's current size.    There are other terms and descriptions that could refer to the same phenomena.  In order to include an instance of the phenomena which is the topic of this article, there is no requirement to have sourcing that says it is an instance of the particular term which was chosen as the title for this article.  IMO not only is this not a policy/guideline requirement,  such a requirement should not get imposed by editorial decision. I think that this falls within the possibilities covered by your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We are in complete agreement about your first point (although 'agreement' is of little importance where facts are concerned): this article neglects to denote the origin of a term absent from most all mainstream reliable sources. And yes, denoting that info (and there are sources aplenty to that end) would indeed shed new light on the rest of this article's content.
 * And yes, the evidence for those other terms used for this 'phenomena' is in the very 'state-atheism'-term-absent sources used to cite the events denoted in this article. But, as for:
 * ''"In order to include an instance of the phenomena which is the topic of this article, there is no requirement to have sourcing that says it is an instance of the particular term which was chosen as the title for this article. IMO not only is this not a policy/guideline requirement, such a requirement should not get imposed by editorial decision."
 * ...then who is it going to be 'imposed' by? And that 'not a policy or requirement' claim is simply not true, as the first sentences of WP:AT are: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome ThePromenader. On the other matter, yeah. I think we have all put in our thoughts in the previous few sections back to back. No need to refuel the discussions. Just will mention one source I recently found which gives an example on how the same phenomenon is referred to by different terms. "The seven decades of Soviet atheism (1917–1987), whether one calls it ‘mass atheism’, ‘scientific atheism’, or ‘state atheism’, was unquestionably a new phenomenon in world history." The Routledge Handbook of Postsecularity . It should be obvious. There is no vocabulary limiting factor here or in any other wikipedia pages, only relevance. Also, WP:AT states at the top: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.". In terms of reliable sources, we already have many on the phenomenon in different countries. This article does not compare to articles like "Atheism Plus" from Rationalwiki which actually do have problems in finding reliable sources. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Words on a talk page will not change the fact that next to none of this article's sources use anything near the term 'state atheism'... because the events described in this article are attributed by their sources to many different topics, because only this article (and select sources of a demonstrable 'type') group them under a created-by-a-specific-demographic against-a-specific-demographic 'faux' designation, a fact that is also demonstrated by the very sources used in this article. So, yes, rather than re-try old arguments (to have me repeatedly repeat the same one ; ), let's what those sources say and follow that, just as wikipedia articles are supposed to. T P  ✎ ✓ 23:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources speak for themselves in the article so their words vs yours I suppose.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost: the sources speak for themselves, period. Any 'interpretation' beyond that is WP:SYNTH. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 03:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This article's mass of inline citations made editing a bit of a chore, so I extracted these to the notes section and replaced them with templates... this should make things much easier to edit and read. Grep has always been one of my strange ideas of 'fun', so it wasn't too much of a hassle. Oh, and this won't 'break' if later contributors don't 'follow the rules': a second template will catch all the 'strays' (later citation additions not using the Oxford/Harvard system). Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Odd reformatting of sources and claiming sources inaccessible when they clearly are
ThePromenader, Wikipedia articles have to follow the guidelines on referencing in WP:ASL. The arbitrary division you made today of a wired "Quotation" section separated from the rest of the "references" or "notes" is not one I have ever seen on any wikipedia article. Here is the differences. It is very bulky and does not follow the guidelines. This odd double division change is not two days work since it was done barely today. I will revert this soon because the division makes no sense and does not follow wp guidelines. The quotations are part of the "Notes" /"references" section like in every other wikipedia article.

Furthermore, you have a weird habit of not looking up the existing sources yourself when they are clearly are there and then claiming that you cannot find a quote or source, even when the sources and page numbers are clearly there. For example, you wrote "- text inaccessible, quote not provided" when all the quote has been there all along in the line before the citation. Furthermore, I am not sure how you can be so sloppy by saying that the "text inaccessible" when here it is. Can you not see it? It was there all along even before you made the edits on citations. It took me a few seconds to find the source and page number and quote like it said originally in the article. Please pay attention.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You did it again right now . Can you really be that sloppy? It also had the line about how the Khmer Rouge Banned religion. I will restore it now. This has happened multiple times before and I have been restoring sources that you removed because you did not bother to look up the source. For instance, I did some restoring in the Soviet Union since you had "no quote provided" on 'Kowalewski_1980_p426-441' when if you bothered to look up the article, the quote was on the very first page which I extracted because you apparently did not bother to look up. Please do your research first before making claims like this when I was able to find it easily. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ASL is but a guideline, not a rule, and that section makes no mention of the footnotes groups described just a bit further down: "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists using footnotes groups."


 * ...so the insinuation that some rule has been 'offended' is an empty one (made by a single wikipedian, so even less call for (contentious) reverting). It is clear that the change has intended function, but that has not even been addressed yet - and not every other article drowns itself in irrelevant sources (to 'mask' WP:SYNTH) - the Paris article has a reference section just a bit longer than this one, and that is a -super- -long article. This one 'drowns' single claims in multiple (often non-sequitur) citations, and that is a problem.
 * Thanks again for misrepresenting a single instance as a general, intentional, ('offensive') behaviour pattern (and those examples in how many sources formatted over the past days?).
 * But hunting down the source (and providing an access to it) is exactly is what one is supposed to do when one encounters a 'claim not supported' or 'quote not provided' note: the burden is on the contributor making the claim, not the one formatting it. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 04:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And to further underline that misrepresentation, I did indeed look for access to the text, and provided a link to the source work (where none existed before), and here I not only provided access to the source work, but provided the required (out of reader courtesy) quote , and all that just before the contentious reverting and above accusation.
 * All of that speaks pretty well for itself about what's going on here. T P  ✎ ✓ 04:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And the diff you provided after your "you did it again just now" was one to me removing the 'quote not provided' text (after providing the quote myself)? This makes no sense - perhaps think before 'reacting' (on an apparent in-group out-group attitude that has no place here). T P  ✎ ✓ 05:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline says "With some exceptions discussed below, citations appear in a single section containing only the tag or the {Reflist} template." There is no "Quotations" section mentioned in the guideline at all so obviously it is not one of the exceptions. Also, nowhere in the guideline does it say to split the references by an arbitrary and made up section called "Quotations" from the "References"/"Notes". It will be reverted because your made up format serves no purpose. The quotes are part of the notes/references like in every other article on wikipedia. Even the Paris article you just cited has no "Quotation" section either.


 * Keep in mind that you have been reformatting the sources and adding the comments like "no quotes provided", "citation needed", etc. If you did your due diligence before writing those comments then you would have easily seen the quotes from the sources themselves since they all have page numbers too. Obviously if you would have just reformatted the sources without adding such comments in the refs, this would not be an issue. Moving around sources is one thing, but inserting claims about sources in the references (like "no quote provide", ""text inaccessible") when they are clearly well cited and easy to find and verify with the page numbers being there already, is another thing.


 * Look at what you wrote on your edit summary for the diff: "text remains inaccessible all the same - 'justtakemyworforit'-ism - but removing 'quote not provided'". You just removed the "quote not provided" in your edit but you still claimed text was inaccessible even though I was able to access it through google easily. Please pay attention to the sources and look them up before making claims on the sources. I have not had many issues finding quotes in this article because I look up the sources since they have all the essential information like page#s. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

And after examination, the accusatory behaviour makes even less sense: you seem to have found the google books reference in apparently using text you already have as a search, but don't replace the reference link to the work (the only 'un-searchable' one I could find, where there was no link at all before), all while claiming that 'the text was always there' (where?)? I will at least provide the link you managed to find to the reference (doing your work for you!). Please stop with the decidedly contentious behaviour. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, you are but 'wikilawyering' selecting 'interpreted' bits of wiki guidelines to rationalise an 'I don't like it' attitude: I already provided a link, and quote, to the very intent and purpose of the footnotes groups function. Otherwise, why would it even exist? T P  ✎ ✓ 05:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a link or not for a source is not an issue nor is it a requirement for any source (sometimes it is not possible). But that is why Page numbers, ISBN, title, etc are all basic stuff needed for sourcing on wikipedia. It does the job. Also, I quoted the guideline in green by the way. Your division is what I am questioning as it serves no purpose. All other wikipedia articles have quotes integrated into the References/Notes section and that is how this article always was til today when you made your edit. The previous way was better and made sense.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 'No purpose' is just an expression of your opinion, especially in the light of my just providing (three times now) a link to the very reason the footnotes groups method was created and exists. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, few other articles are 'reference-drowned' like this one is (in an attempt to 'mask' (from who? Its authors?) its widespread WP:SYNTH - why aren't we addressing that issue?). Thank goodness that it's a relatively low-importance low-traffic article. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I just replaced the existing unsearchable reference link with the 'easily accessible' (by -the person making that claim-, not the article) with the 'right' (searchable) link, so let's hope that's an end to that. Since you do seem to have access to article-concerning texts and sources that others don't, it might be useful to look for other citations that may have the same 'no access' (thus 'quote required') problem (and save everyone else a lot of (mind-reading ; ) work). Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 05:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Cool. That is what I have been doing in this article mainly. I already extracted numerous quotes since all sources are searchable and the internet makes it easy to do so. I will say that the book and journal references section looks better overall. I know you put in lots of work (it was tedious) and that is appreciated. Thank you for that. Just need to go back to the way the article was before with quotes in the references section instead of two different sections.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That 'need' is only yours. Again, the article state almost requires that sort of separation-formatting, but perhaps it won't be required if the article state changes.
 * Thanks for the thanks, and yes, it was tedious, but it needed to be done - getting rid of source ambiguity makes improvement-discussion easier, too. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 06:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No other article has an obnoxious "quote" note in each reference. The quote is already accessible by clicking on the citation number. I am reversing this tendentious editing. desmay (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Without fail, a revert followed by a condescending, empty 'from-(empty)authority'-toned tu quoque accusation: it's those who revert without discussion who are being tendentious, disruptive, bullying, and WP:POISONing the editing atmosphere. But hey, some like things messy, because ambiguity is another form of obfuscation (to distract to)... especially when one has no other defense (for a WP:SYNTH-based article).
 * Oh, and, in your blind haste to revert, you also reverted other edits by User:Ramos1990 and I - I expect you to reinstate those, at the least. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 17:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, in your stead. In the future, I suggest you take another tack: in just one edit, you ticked of pretty well everything in this list]. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 09:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO the simpler the better regarding reference formatting. We want an article which a mere mortal :-) can understand enough to add references to and not be intimidated by a more complex approach. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you that adding a 'group=q' tag to every 'ref' tag (and repeat thereof) is a PITA (and probably would be missed/skipped/ignored/misunderstood). But it did look pretty. Oh well: one has to try and test before one can say 'no'. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 20:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did manage to 'compact' the references section, though (looks nicer, makes for less of a long page). <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

One may note that I have clearly gone through the work to verify and make accessible each and every source in this article. The 'text inaccessible' note is for the authors of the problematic passages, but if these aren't forthcoming in providing a link to a verifiable source or a quote, they will be replaced with proper templates that will draw outside attention to the issues. And if the reverting (removal of these notes) continues, they will be replaced with those templates right away. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 04:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not been doing your job correctly. Here are the diffs . Here we go:


 * Kowalewski_1980_p426-441: article linked to JSTOR.
 * Shinishta_1976: clearly properly sourced. Look it up in a library or other means.
 * Zhibin_2006: was linked to google books already.
 * Tyler_2004: was linked to google books already.
 * Cronon_1958: was linked to Journal of American History.
 * Denslow_2004: was linked to google books.


 * Clearly these are all accessible and properly sourced. Otherwise, you would not have links to the sources online or publisher information or ISBNs or page numbers, etc. Perhaps, there is "Limited Access" (I have not looked into them yet) but clearly no inaccessibility. There is nothing to hide here since only you believe that everything here is a conspiracy theory and no one else does. No one trusts your assessment of sources either because of stuff like this and the examples I gave above where you clearly could not find the source when it was there in the article all along with page numbers. The fact that I have been able to extract so much material from sources in this article alone already clearly shows that sources are all accessible if you put in the effort - Spend some money and buy the source, go to a library, use google books, google scholar, or even amazon.com they have great previews. Some of these sources are better sourced in other articles on wikipedia. I have found a few with the links to the actual docs this way. Just have to put in the time and some effort in general. At least try and remember that if you struggle to find a source in the article, other may be able to.


 * Here is one suggestion, why not change your wording to "Limited Access" instead of "text inaccessible" for the time being?&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No need for conspiracy theories (or accusations thereof): if the source is not verifiable, it must be marked as such. And, again, it is for the person making the claim to provide a proper reference or at least quotation: I'm just doing that job in their stead the best I can (as the edit history clearly demonstrates). The blanket-reverting (even -before- the verification was done) was especially unproductive in that those notes were the only thing allowing the work to be taken up again where it was left off (as, absent the notes, each reference would have to be verified once again from the beginning). Also note that I am not making 'in your face' in-article inline notations, but rather making it so that they appear down in the 'notes' section (where no-one will even see them unless they look for it!). So no need for any WP:OWN-ish panicked behaviour: in the future, if a claim lacks a source, simply look for one (instead of reverting and pointing fingers instead).
 * As of now, any link to a subscription-requiring journal is marked as such as is the protocol, and links pointing to google books with no preview are marked accordingly as well, again, discreetly down in the notes section. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 10:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the things you have pointed out have a proper reference already with page numbers, ISBN, and sometimes even links online. The point is that you are making claims on sources as you do the edits without paying attention or verifying in the article what is already there. It is one thing to move around sources or reorganize, but the fact that you are explicitly putting in the time to make comments (without verifying what is already there - preserving) as you move or reorganize the sources means that you are conscious about what you are doing. (Otherwise you could have labeled some stuff as "let me revisit this source" meanwhile you did your editing and I would have left it alone, not the other wording you were using which looked like you had already had made a judgment on it). You cannot play coy on this - especially when I or others correct it and you end up reverting and not listening to what we did. You cannot disorganize the sources and then resist others for correcting the disorganization, whether intentional or not. I have been cleaning up after you because you have made so many edits that it got confusing and I tried to correct it in chunks to not lose track of what you are missing (by accident perhaps). Look at my edits, they are all usually very few and either minor or filling in the gaps, yours are massive and high quantity and sometimes it looks like you are hogging the page WP:OWN. By the way, I have not started the reverting with you. I usually make the changes, corrections, or adjustments like any other editor and then you end up reverting me! Look at the article history dude and see who hits the revert button first all the time - I just double checked that too. I am just saying be careful and listen to others. Plus all this work you are doing is voluntary. You did not need to do this, but if you felt like doing it, then please do it right and carefully and do not take correcting by other editors the wrong way.


 * I think that the "subscription" tag is the correct and neutral. Better than I thought. It makes sense. The google books without preview is ok too. These are neutral things to say. Keep this up.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit confict) But that's just it - you were making your criticisms and accusations and 'fixes' (reverts! the edit log is clear about this) while the work was going on (after months of not even touching the article?). I'm done since this morning, 'subscription' tags are already there and there are but two citations that are not verifiable (short of going to the university/library, or buying the book)... and I have asked elsewhere what to do about that, as some of the claims here are extraordinary. But it's really no big deal, and from a reader point of view, absolutely nothing has changed as far as the text is concerned (other than their new ability to see an entire quotation/source when hovering a citation), so I really don't see where there (tu quoque ; ) WP:OWN accusation comes from. By the way, this sort of citation is what WP:FA articles require - you're welcome?
 * (added after conflict) and I have been doing my best to do it 'right' all along... I explained the need for those notes (and the discreet placement thereof both here and in my edit summaries) your interventions (and criticism thereof) were before-the-fact, that's all, so no big deal, there's no need to 'save face' here. Cheers. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 17:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

North Korea
Thisedit caught my eye. The edit reverted three edits by an anon without explanation. What caught my eye was the removal of Dubious tags. I've removed my share of these because I saw no associated discussion on the article talk page, and there is no such discussion here. Fair enough, but then I took a look at the assertions which had been tagged as dubious. FWIW, I am not a fan of the North Korea government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one is: "free religious activities do not exist in North Korea, because the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom." Three sources are cited in support, none of which support that assertion (I have a technical issue with the third of those cites, not important here, which I will either figure out or pursue separately). After finding no support for the assertion in the sources cited, I looked at the three articles named as main articles for this section and found that assertion in Freedom of religion in North Korea, citing this source in support. That source does not support the assertion. Looking back at the editing history of this article, I see that the assertion was added in this edit, citing this source. That source has linkrotted away and I couldn't come up with a copy after a brief troll of internet archives. I have removed that assertion here as unsupported and will be removing it from the Freedom of religion in North Korea article.
 * The second assertion is "After 1,500 churches were destroyed during the rule of Kim Il Sung from 1948 to 1994, three churches were built in Pyongyang to deflect human rights criticism.", citing a source which supports the first part of the assertion and does not really support the last part as written here in Wikipedia's editorial voice (it says, "two Protestant churches and a Roman Catholic church, without a priest, opened in Pyongyang in 1988. However, the absence of a priest for Roman Catholics means that Mass cannot be celebrated and most sacraments cannot be performed. Several foreign residents have reported that they regularly attend services at these churches and that it is clear that whatever public religious activity exists, such as services at these churches, is staged for their benefit."). I will reword the last part of that assertion to be more in line with what the source cited does support.
 * Hi User:Wtmitchell. I hear you, but I checked the sources myself and since the "dubious" showed no discussion, I removed them. Plus, I guess you did not see my edit summary where I said "In refs".


 * For the first one, the CIA Factbook source states under North Korea "note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom" when you click open the "Religions" tab. So the wording is almost verbatim.


 * For the second one you mentioned, I agree that the first part is there but if you look at the previous sentences it says "In recent years, the government has formed several religious organizations that it controls for the purpose of severely restricting religious activities in the country. For example, the Korean Buddhist Federation prohibits Buddhist monks from worshiping at "official" North Korean temples. Most of the remaining temples that have escaped government destruction since the Korean War are regarded as cultural relics rather than religious sites. Similarly, the Korean Christian Federation restricts Christian activities." Then it continues with your quote form the source. So the original wiki editor mistakenly confused Christian church with Christian organizations, which the source says were created by the government to restrict religious activities. Slight adjust is all that is needed. What do you think?Ramos1990 (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No argument after reading that. I think there ought to be some clarification, however -- I missed seeing all that, and others might as well. Rewording in the assertions and/or clarification in the footnotes ought to do it. Please undo/adjust my edit as needed. The CIA Factbook source has a People tab and a Religions section under that, not a Religions tab; I had looked at that but didn't make the connection -- my error there. I had also made a change in the re that in Freedom of religion in North Korea; I'll back that out and perhaps do some rewording there. Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the opinion of the CIA. It shouldn't be presented as fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. OTOH, I recall having seen somewhere an assertion re policy on this to the effect that because writing something like "it has been reported by" everywhere would cause lots of clutter, a statement presented as fact by a significant WP:RS should be presented by WP as cite-supported fact unless challenged or contradicted by a differing statement from another significant RS -- in which case WP:DUE comes into play.
 * There's some more non-definitive info related to this in the U.S. State Dept 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I've just added a link to that in the External links section of the Freedom of religion in North Korea article. Perhaps some of the info in there should make it into the body of that article, moving the mention of that report into the References section there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it comes from good source(s) and is not contested I think that the norm is to simply state it as fact. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern about WP:YESPOV. A possible issue here is that sources also report how difficult it is to investigate.  This of course is a result of problematic totalitarian policies.  I tried to rework the section but I welcome others to also do so, it's only tentative.  I also didn't touch the last sentences, only text related to what was being discussed here.  The other sentences may too need auditing and/or copy-editing for better integration perhaps...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no way of finding out what the intention of the North Korean authorities is (unless you take their word for it). What we have hear is the opinion of the CIA — far from a neutral source. The Russian Orthodox Church has a functioning parish in Pyongyang.. Do they think it is an illusion?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any topical expertise here, but I dug around and found . Page 149 re the North Korean seems particularly relevant, but this much detail belongs in the Religion in North Korea article, rather than here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see the whole book, but it seems a useful source. I would note, apposite to this discussion, that being under tight control of the government does not imply that religious groups are just for show, which I think the article currently suggests. Clearly religious groups are autonomous. Stamping them out can be hard to do. The fact is that North Korea has allowed religions and religious charities to operate, and has even produced its own version of the Bible. The CIA, which claims the truth will set you free, believes that this is an attempt to create the illusion of freedom. Equally, a North Korean cynic could say that the US Constitution is a plantation-owner's smokescreen, designed to conceal the slavery of Africans and the dispossession of the Native Americans. That's a matter of opinion. Is Trump a real Presbyterian? Does he understand TULIP? What exactly are Barack Obama's religious beliefs? We could go on endlessly. But these aren't questions that an encyclopedia can answer. We should simply cite the verifiable facts and note the notable opinions. I agree that the CIA's opinion is notable, but I don't think it's a verifiable fact. You can torture people to see if they believe in God, but you might not get a reliable result.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No argument from me on that, but I wonder how you define "verifiable fact". WP generally reports as fact, regardless of the opinion of WP editors, assertions by significant sources considered generally reliable which are presented by those sources as fact. If such assertions are contradicted by other sources of comparable significance and reliability, WP:DUE comes into play. If the factualness of the CIA Factbook assertion is thought by WP editors to be doubtful, either the reliability of the CIA factbook as a source ought to be challenged or a source of similar significance and reliability which asserts otherwise ought to be reported alongside the report of the CIA Factbook asssertion. WP:IJDLI just doesn't hack it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The CIA has a lot of information resources and I think an incentive to not be seen as being in error. Plus "create an illusion of freedom" motivation seems very logical and plausible. On the flip side, overemphasizing just that one aspect would not be an accurate picture. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Attribution to CIA seems to have already solved the issues here. It puts weight on the source than WP's voice.Ramos1990 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:IJDLI is just an essay and the ''[[WP:IJDLI#Article content|Article

content]]'' section there isn't policy, or even a guideline. Still, I think it makes sense to observe the suggestions therein, absent a consensus on a per-article basis not to. I'm being a bit anal about this, though. I'm OK with presuming a consensus on this to go with the "according to the CIA" disclaimer currently in the article even absent a balancing source with a differing viewpoint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

From my end, I'm just trying to be helpful here. Any outcome is OK with me. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Only 4 states left with state atheism?
According to the map, only 4 countries have state atheism (as of 2019)? Should not that be mentioned in the article? 49.149.198.13 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed Inline commentary
The issue outlined in the removed inline comment was not resolved, so either provide references that state that the events outlined are 'state atheism', or remove the questioned passages, please. Thanks. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 21:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We already discussed your odd idea that every source has to say "state atheism" in multiple discussions here on the talk page. The latest one was from May 2019 called "State atheism". The consensus, again, was that this article need not always use that term since the pehnomenon goes by multiple names in literature and certainly is referenced in different forms. Source # 49 on the article specifies that the phenomenon can be called multiple different things. "The seven decades of Soviet atheism, whether one calls it "mass atheism," "scientific atheism," "state atheism," was unquestionably a new phenomenon in world history." It should be obvious by now.


 * The current sources on there include demographical information on religious affiliations after the soviet era. In your inline citation, you stated They summarise the religiosity of post-Soviet societies, but how relevant is this to the concept and practice of state atheism? I think you already answered yourself with that. Post soviet religious changes is part of the story of state atheism. They are the aftermath of such government sanctioned policies as those had impacts on societies. I already condensed it as it probably needed to be shortened either way.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One would be hard-pressed to find a citation not mentioning 'radiator' for a 'radiator' article.
 * The fact that an article's authors must go through interpretive acrobatics to find reliable sources even mentioning the article title already speaks volumes in itself.
 * When events are recited under article title, this is an implicit declaration that those events are article title, yet if the article sources describing those events make no mention of article title, who is making that declaration? The wikipedians writing the article, evidently.
 * There's nothing 'odd' about questioning that: the above is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH and even WP:OR, and no amount of discussion can negate that very blatant fact. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 08:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO there's no rule that says that a source has to include the exact title of the article in order to include material from it in the article or use it to support material in the article. If someone wants to make an argument for exclusion of material without basing it on a non-existent rule, that's fine, that's what talk pages are for. As far as I know, there's nothing that says they can embed their opinion or what they want in the body of the article and that it has to stay there until they are satisfied.

Articles often have closely related material that is not per-se about the topic. (sidebar info, aftermath of..., impacts from..., opinions on...., response to, history leading to, friends/relatives/associates of, etc.)  Wikipedia does not have a WP:relevance standard, but if it did it would certainly not categorically exclude such things. Also the title may have synonyms, and wikipedia disambg wording which no source is going to use verbatim. etc.. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite a stretch, and it only tries to sidestep the point. This is not a generally-named 'big dog' article: 'State Atheism' is a specific term and concept with identifiable origins.
 * "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."
 * From WP:OR:
 * ...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
 * Almost no reliable sources depict the events listed in the article as 'state atheism'... yet that's exactly what most of this article does: textbook WP:SYNTH.
 * With this in mind, perhaps a review of this article by an objective those besides myself is in order. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P   ✎ ✓ 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Either way you should start be clarifying which of these you are talking about: Regarding #1, such an inclusion at most is an implied statement that it falls in the scope of the article, not that there is an exact title match. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Inclusion where such an inclusion makes an implicit claim that some instance is a form of state atheism
 * 2) Inclusion which makes no such claim but which you are just saying is off topic.

Map labeling is inconsistent between views
On the article page, the map key reads: Dark Red: Countries that formerly practiced state atheism Light Red: Countries that currently practice state atheism When clicking on the map, the key reads: Dark Red: Countries that currently practice state atheism Light Red: Countries that formerly practiced state atheism I don't know which is accurate, but the discrepancy should be corrected. Captainakira (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They seem to agree when I look at them. Hardyplants (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References?
Are all the "References" listed really used in the article? Editor2020 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. An editor changed the format from the usual cite referencing format to this. There are numerous pages from the same source used in some of the citations so it seems helpful in that it reduces duplicate referencing.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)