Talk:State atheism/reference analysis

Why most all of this article's claims (that the events depicted therein 'are' "State atheism") are not supported by their sources
Almost none of this article's sources apply a 'state atheism' (or even similar) label to the events described, and the label is utterly absent from all mainstream, reliable historical references. When we look for sources that do use the term 'state atheism' (or 'atheist state'), we see the reason for this: a vast majority of them are religious and/or 'anti-atheist' in context and/or nature.

This is because 'State atheism' is a religion-created concept: it is an attempt by a select demographic to pin the acts of history's despotic religion-suppressing regimes on another 'enemy' select-demographic, in this case 'atheism'... and this meme phenomenon even has a name, the "atheist atrocities fallacy". What is ironic about this is that this meme attacks not 'atheism' per se, but a strawman of its own creation: even the sources cited here demonstrate that this accusation can have little or nothing to do with 'atheism'.

Again, a Google search for "state atheism" is enough to demonstrate the above: at the top we see this article, then a mix of mostly religous, evangelist and 'conservative' websites making the above accusations. So, not only does this article not cite its sources accurately (as demonstrated below, most of them are chosen to WP:SYNTH the state atheism meme), its purpose is to use wikipedia's popularity to broadcast this created-by-a-specific-demographic-against-another-specific-demographic concept-accusation WP:ATTACK meme as 'truth'.

Since this article is the top result of a google search for 'state atheism', this article is helping to misinform, propagate and transform a select-demographic-authored against-other-targeted-demographic meme into a 'real thing'... and this is arguably the goal of this article in its present state (otherwise why not just attribte these acts to 'stalinism' or 'soviet ideology' as reliable sources do)?.

A source-supported "state atheism" article
It is undeniable that the state atheism label exists... just following this article's sources that do apply a 'state atheist' label to the events depicted is enough to provide ample information about the term's origin and use. And as it is far from a mainstream view, it is utterly easy, and extremely relevant to the topic, to attribute those exerpts to their authors.

It is also generally accepted that 'state atheism' may apply to soviet ideology (although a source demonstrating the by who of this is still absent - but the 'atheist state' label is echoed in some more reliable (but still not mainstream) sources), but this phenomena itself originates in the 1950s U.S. evangelist 'anti-communism' surge ... that resulted in this very 'atheism = communism' 'athiest atrocities' meme.

Another solution would be to move the majority of the content here to relevent articles, such as Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, or perhaps Persecution of Christians, as that seems to be in line with this article's goal. But even there, there will be problems, as few sources describing the removal of religious dogma from public state-funded education would call those acts 'persecution'... but let's not digress.T P  ✎ ✓ 12:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal re: State_atheism
I propose that this entire section be removed. It's about the Cult of reason, which in the linked article is described as a state religion, not state atheism. This appears to be a case of WP:COAT and / or off-topic. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: The reason the Cult of Reason article does not mention state atheism is because Xenophrenic, who, based on numerous ANIs/ANEs/etc., is a pov-pusher and edit warrior on atheism-related articles, removed that word from the article even though the reference clearly mentions it . --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The state atheism article should mention the Cult of Reason. There are reliable sources and good evidence to support this matter: God Divided: Understanding the Differences Between Islam, Christianity By Christopher Catherwood,See page 145 of this academic paper and 10 failed atttempts to create state atheismKnox490 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As if 'voting' counts for anything: if reliable sources don't designate a claim as 'state atheism' (and none of this section's sources do this), it should be removed. The same goes for the Mexico section... and any claim at all in this article, actually. The 'references' provided (in the comment above) use the apologetic-neologism version of 'state atheism' (as part of the purely apologetic 'atheist atrocities' fallacy) and are theologian in nature (and laughable - one is a thesis for a doctorate in Christian Theology (taken from the first source) and the latter article is titled '10 Failed Attempts To Create State Cults Or Religions')... but I guess relating reality isn't important to the authors of this largely WP:OR article. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious Oppose: - It's a weird thing to suggest removing a section just after an editor who is on the edge of getting banned removes the word "atheistic" from the Cult of Reason article. I think that the France section could actually be expanded, perhaps with the help of an experienced historian like User:Rjensen. desmay (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be underlined: 'voting' or not, if the claim-supporting sources don't mention 'state atheism', both should be removed, as that would be pure WP:OR amd WP:SYNTH and strictly verboten by Wikipedia standards. This rule applied would, effectively, remove the entire section (and that of Mexico, too, amongst others - in fact, this would greatly reduce the entire article). T P  ✎ ✓ 22:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree, twice over. The article is about a subject, and one which could go by various names. First, OR and synth refer to statements in content, not to the mere presence of material in an article. Second, given that the subject can have many names, there's not a requirement that the source mention the particular title of the Wikipedia article.
 * That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity. One can concoct any story or concept from any given number of demonstrable facts, and provide references to those individual facts, but that doesn't mean that those facts, even though they check out individually, support (or even mention) the story - that is what's happening here. And if a source doesn't mention a concept (especially one as particular as this one), but is used to support/describe/'confirm' that concept, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. T P  ✎ ✓ 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, please note that I did note weigh in on the inclusion/exclusion question because I feel I've not learned enough about the Cult of Reason to do so. I was weighing in on your ratoinale for exclusion.  Next, please don't invent deragatory non-existent motives for my post as you did with your "That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity".  Finally, your post did not even address the 2 points that I made much less refute them.  North8000  (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I addressed your two points specifically... if this article (understatedly) claims that its title 'thing' is many different things (by including different sources talking about different 'things'), that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. A wikipedia contributor may think that a claim/event may qualify for, say, 'communism', but they can't call it that unless the source they cite does... and if it doesn't, yet they make the claim all the same, again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR.
 * Most of this article's claims cite sources that have 'state atheism' nowhere in them... look for yourself and go figure. T P  ✎ ✓ 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Better example: let's say I'm someone who subscribes to a concept or theory that few or none subscribe to, and starts a 'X is really Y' article. The events and characters I choose to include in the article may be real, citable X, and my including them in my 'is really Y' article is an understated 'evidence' for that claim, but nowhere in any source I cite is there any allusion to/evidence of 'X is really Y'.
 * That's exactly what this article does. T P  ✎ ✓ 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not to the knowledge point of weighing in on this particular article. But one example of my two points would a hypothetical "Fast Car" article.  And an insertion is made that the (reputable) XYZ magazine said that as of 2017 the Bugatti Model 1257 has the highest top speed of any production car in the world.  The magazine did not specifically say that the Bugatti Model 1257 is a "fast car", the specific title of the article. I would say that this inclusion is not a violation of synth or wp:or, my two (plus an added third) points on this are:
 * Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not the mere inclusion of material in articles.
 * "Fast cars" is one of many possible terms for the subject area of the article. Sourcing does not need to use the specific article title for content to be directly germane to the article.
 * Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not to the process of determination of whether or not a source supports a statement or statement-by-presence in the article.
 * Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One doesn't require knowledge to observe that the sources do not match the article title's claim (that the facts it contains are 'concept Y').
 * 'Fast cars' is a bad analogy because it is a vague descriptive (and either word can be any number of things). 'State atheism' is a precise claim-concept only used by a select few outside of its use as a translation for the soviet-era anti-religion brigade, and its more recent derivative is utterly absent from historical consensus (and works derived thereof).
 * A better example would be someone claiming that a bat is a bird: they start a 'bat (bird)' article, and in it factually describe everything about bats, and those facts check out with their sources, but utterly absent in any sourcea is the article title's claim that 'bats are birds'.
 * And this article does also exactly that. T P  ✎ ✓ 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You could be right on where the issue on this particular article should end up on this topic...I don't know. And please note that my posts were limited to the very narrow topic of applicability or wp:or / synthesis to the question.  But you analogy is not analogous...the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false. North8000  (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false.
 * ...and we may agree that it is false (which is a moot point where demonstrable fact is concerned), but the fact that it is false is also demonstrated (a wikipedia requirement) by the lack of 'bats are birds' or references to bats as 'birds' in the citations provided (or any reference). And if none of the references used here refer to the events presented as 'state atheism' (or even use the term in the entire publication), who is claiming that it is 'state atheism'? The wikipedian contributing those facts under that label, that's who (and perhaps the other contributors who, against all demonstrable evidence, 'agree' with them): again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. T P   ✎ ✓ 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the narrower topic that I was discussing, I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree.  North8000  (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rules (and principles) aren't selectively applied, here: the problems in the narrower topic (if it the France section you are referring to) is the 'norm' for the rest of the article as well, and those faults are demonstrable... 'agreements' (or 'votes') will not resolve them.
 * But if testable demonstrations and reason are ineffective in discussions about resolving them, and it comes down to (once again) to a "the 'side' agrees with (or 'votes for') more 'wins'" situation, I don't at all mind opening another RfC on this. T P  ✎ ✓ 06:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Clear oppose The map shows France and the section on France is also very detailed and informative. I find a few sources other than what have been listed here. Lorstaking (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Many of the sources cited above make no comment (some make opposite comment) about whether the France did ever or does promote State Atheism, some sources and comments appear to want to make no distinction between S-A, secularism and anti-clericalism. Perhaps a less WP-voiced section could be created making the point that some sources have described this period thus, but reliance on OR, SYNTH and relatively marginal sources in the discussion above advertises how marginal this PoV really is. To give one example "French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France". It makes no more sense to link that to S-A, than it would to argue that a particular campaign or campaigner which made homosexuality more acceptable, was somehow proof of State gayness.Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Source evaluation
Source breakdown from the current revision:


 * The source does not support the text. Not even close.


 * The full quote is, "But if the French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France, it appeared to have precisely the opposite effect in Britain." But being the operative word.
 * Gavin Hyman is not a historian.


 * Supported by the source, but it's trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Supported by the source, but still not on topic. I.e., WP:SYNTH.


 * A book by two fringe authors does not a reliable source make. I.e., Pyramids and Freemasons are off topic.


 * The second sentence is not supported by the source.
 * Michael Davies (Catholic writer) is not a reliable source on the topic. I.e., The balance, factual or not, is irrelevant.


 * Supported, but off topic. Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH, again.


 * The quote is accurate, but is the first sentence of a chapter entitled, "Religion and rationality." I.e., The source does not cover "State atheism."
 * The source contains exactly two mentions of the "French Revolution", both are on the page cited. I.e., The source does not cover the "French Revolution."
 * Gavin Flood is, also, not a historian.


 * Supported, but off topic. a.k.a., Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.

Sure looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH to me. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is demonstrably a lot of WP:SYNTH. Do preserve this (and thanks for all that work!) for a future RfC (or better), as I'm pretty well sure that any attempt to remove the offending section will (in spite of all evidence) be reverted, and reason and rules haven't seemed to have much effect here in the past. T P  ✎ ✓ 15:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of all that has transpired, and also IMO some questionable arguments (is it synth?) on what are actually sidebar points, if you feel that the article should be changed, my suggestion would be to propose the specific change in an RFC, and leave all of the arguments regarding the proposed change for the response section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling something 'questionable' with no demonstrable counter-evidence/reference is not helpful, and isn't even considerable, really. Since the WP:SYNTH is demonstrable (and has been demonstrated above), the article should simply be changed. T P  ✎ ✓ 00:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that anything discussed has established that it is wp:synth, but the synth debate is a sidebar point either way. And regarding what's next, I was merely deriving that from the close of the RFC. I think that all of Artifax's points were good except for again that structural sidebar. Perhaps the material should be removed. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, 'agree' (or 'disagree', or 'voting') aren't even applicable where Wikipedia policy offenses are concerned. ArtifexMayhem points not only part of the discussion, but the evidence (that you seem to acknowledge) supporting it. Normally the content should just be removed, and an RfC would come into play should this removal be reversed or some sort of evidenceless or evidence-defying 'protectionism'happens, as it is a place to present a factual case (and call others to examine the evidence)... as is this conversation already, but those watching this page (its authors) don't seem to want to participate, which says much about what is going on here (and a lack of counter-evidence) and what is to come... and that, most likely, will be an RfC or other arbitrary measure. I'm glad, though, that you see some sense in all this. T P  ✎ ✓ 10:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ThePromenader is correct. Unless better sourcing is found, the material will be removed. Holding a RFC over such basic policy issues doesn't make much sense. FYI: I've started a source evaluation on the Revolutionary Mexico section, but probably won't finish it until late next week. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to just do a recap and then sign off. IMHO no synth policy issue has been established. Synth is creating a statement, not including material that is or may not be germane.  But it appears to me (just from reading here, I don't have expertise in the area of the disputed content)that the material may not be germane and may make a wrong or unsourced statement by inclusion (that such is State aethism) and it may be best to remove it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake, WP:SYNTH is but a subset of WP:OR, but WP:SYNTH 'digs deeper' into a contributor's motive for (usually WP:SOAPBOXing a 'desired conclusion'), and methods of, contributing unsupported/poorly-supported/selective claims.
 * If an author writes an article titled "X", and includes events ("Y") that 'explain' that title, they are declaring that "Y is X"... and when the sources recounting the events (under another title) make no mention of "X" at all (this is already WP:OR territory), that "Y is X" declaration is the author's own (unsupported) opinion (and this is WP:ESSAY), and the meeting of the two is WP:SYNTH. And when one adds the motive of using Wikipedia's popularity to broadcast the (misleading, etc.) result (as 'truth') to the world, it becomes WP:SOAPBOX. So, while this article qualifies for several (if not all) of these 'sub-offenses', WP:OR is the demonstrable root of them all. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No User:ArtifexMayhem, the material will not be removed and if you try to do that against consensus, I'm going to revert you. User:Ramos1990, User:Ozhistory, and User:Lorstaking have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state. Can the material be rewritten? Yes. Should it be removed because you don't like it? No. Thanks for preventing this article from being overtaken by a fringe view User:North8000 - does the sysop who closed the RfC, User:Snuge purveyor, need to intervene here too? desmay (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See, this is what I mentioned earlier - for some, Wikipedia is for 'getting the message out there', and the veracity of that (and the rules requiring that veracity be demonstrated) simply don't... matter.
 * "...have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state"
 * As demonstrated above, the term isn't included in any supporting source. And if the publication doesn't describe the events it contains as 'state atheism' (or even 'atheist state'), who is? The Wikipedia contributors, that's who, and that is stricly forbidden by several Wikipedia rules: (often networked) 'voting' or 'more reverters' are irrelevent in that (and is arguably an offense in itself). <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:ScrapIronIV and User:Rjensen have also worked on this topic before. I think their input would be valuable - the section on Revolutionary France should not be deleted just because you don't like it. desmay (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance of engaging with arguments raised rather than smearing with a label? Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * desmay, can you suggest any sources that would better support the current text? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked it the articles in more detail. I support the removal even though I disagreed with some of the arguments of those in favor of removal. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support removal as the connection between the removed text and the topic of this article is too tenuous. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mexico
This section, too, seems problematic, as none of its sources label these events as 'state atheism'. Not only that, but the events described here don't even qualify for the article's own WP:SYNTHisised definition of 'state atheism'.

Source Evaluation
Source breakdown from the current revision:


 * Brigham Young University (Mormon religious source).
 * Nowhere in text (in its entirety) is Mexico declared as or described as an 'Atheist state', so irrelevant to article. The constitution articles did indeed repress religious activities, but here wikipedia authors are the only ones claiming that these events 'are' "state atheism"... WP:SYNTH and WP:ESSAY.


 * same as above.


 * Author Haas makes a single mention (in entire book) of an 'atheist state' (not 'state atheism') to describe devout peasants revolting against the anti-religious nature of the state (and here could mean 'atheist state of things'). Weasel-y claim (hinting 'many do this') tailored for single-mention citation by single author... weak.


 * Text cited describes "The struggle between Church and State in Mexico" and mentions nowhere any 'atheist state' or 'state atheism', and even the word 'atheist' appears only in Catholic criticisms of the government move to remove the religious elements in education (p. 207: The small but vociferous Catholic newspaper El Hombre Libre of Mexico City indignantly protested Daniels' alleged support of a government campaign "to uproot from them in childhood, from the mind of youtha belief in God and to convert our children into atheists and materialists even against the wishes and protests of parents." and p. 230: By portraying the Mexican Government as atheistic, communistic, and dangerously subversive to American values, the Catholic criticism of these years helped to create an unfavorable American public opinion that not only posed a threat to the Good Neighbor policy but also was to be a great comfort to American oil companies after the expropriation crisis in March, 1938. In other words, more WP:SYNTH.


 * Source does not describe events as that of an 'atheist state', meaning that, again, the wikipedia authors are the ones doing all the declaring, here. WP:SYNTH-WP:ESSAY.


 * Describes government suppression of religious-institution land-ownership... (and article *3 and *24 guarantees religious freedom?)... no mention of any 'Atheist State' or 'state atheism', so off-topic trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Personal text (genealogy website contributor writing about their family history). More complaints about removing religious holds over lands and education, but no description of Mexico as an 'atheist state' - in fact, the word 'atheist' only appears once in the entire online article. More WP:SYNTH


 * Idem *6 (aka WP:SYNTH)


 * Yet another source describing the same religious-power-removal events, as well as clashes between pro-catholic and pro-government factions, but, again, one having nothing to do with or mentioning any 'atheist state' or 'state atheism'. More more WP:SYNTH.


 * idem *9 (WP:SYNTH) and the second source, an article written by an amateur historian, describes "The 1920s -1930s struggle between Church and State in Mexico ultimately goes back to five articles of the 1917 Constitution", but this, again, does not an 'atheist state' make. In fact, not even the word 'atheist' or 'atheism' can be found therein... more trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * "Strident atheist" in the text is a quote of someone, but the citation is cut from the google book. Again, wars between factions (religious and non) does not an 'atheist state' make, and again again, the term 'atheist state' or 'state atheism' appears nowhere in the entire book. Even the term 'atheist' only appears once... in that just-cited quotation. More WP:SYNTH.


 * What does this have to do with anything 'State atheism'? In any case, this is but more irrelevant 'removing religion's power' info that does not belong in any 'state atheism' article.


 * idem * 12. Irrelevant accounts more suited to a "State Freemasonry" article.


 * sourced article is about Plutarco Elías Calles with little mention of the three-year religious rebellion...which does not an 'atheist state' make. Peace with the church was re-established in 1929... so even less. "Bad things done to religion", nothing more. Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH, again.


 * Again, what does 'Freemasonry' have to do with anything 'Atheist State'? In addition to Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH, someone seems to have a bone to pick.


 * ...1929, ending the Cristos conflict of three years, and many church rights were reestablished after (but not before the president was assisinated by a religious fanatic). So much for any 'atheist state' or 'state atheism' (again, the term utterly absent from source). Off topic, Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * The source, a plaintext version of what seems to be a (badly written) short book by a Jesuit Priest, is speaks at length of the 'Entente' years and the against-religion side of brutalities that happened therein. Since this does not an 'atheist state' make (again even a variation of the term not appearing in the text - 'atheist' appears only once in 'atheistic brainwashing' in a Catholic complaint about the government removing religious teaching from schooling). Off topic, Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Idem *17, Off topic, Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Idem *17, 18, same source. Off topic, Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Only the quote is partly supported by source (the rest, namely the 'attempt to indoctrinate the youth', is the wikipedian who wrote this' words), and the full quote is: "The education that the State provides shall be socialist, and in addition to removing all religious doctrine, it will combat fanaticism and prejudices, for which the school shall organize its teachings and activities in a manner that builds in the youth a rational and exact concept of the universe and of social life . . . ."... so they removed religious doctrine from public education (just like in... the U.S.. Say, is the U.S. an 'atheist state', then?). More trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Idem *17, *18, *19, and *20. Only whoever writing this is making the claim that these events make an 'atheist state' or 'are' 'state atheism'... again, utterly absent from the source. Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * But there were still priests... how does this an 'atheist state' make? Again, absent from source, and yet more trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * So it wasn't Mexico, but only those states that were 'atheist'? The source is inaccessible, but that hardly matters when this claim is but yet more trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.

Comments
Not only do none of the sources mention any practice of 'state atheism', but in all it is about a period of religious-power repression that lasted only a few years. The source analysis demonstrates that this entire section is but an WP:OFFTOPIC WP:SYNTH WP:ESSAY.<span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 12:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lede
Overall problem: No mainstream reliable sources label the events depicted in this article as 'state atheism' (or even a derivative of the same), yet the inclusion of those persons/places/events under this article's 'state atheism' title is a tacit (unsourced!) claim that they 'are' "state atheism".

In an attempt to 'cover' for the lack of 'state atheism' in this article's sources, this lede serves as a WP:SYNTH 'set-up': it tries to widen the 'definition' of 'state atheism' as much as possible, then uses the definition's terms as 'license' to associate all events/persons/acts 'similar' in the article as though they 'are' "state atheism". This goes beyond WP:SYNTH, even.

Yet the only definition for 'state atheism' this article can provide is, besides its much-lauded 'Oxford' (press, not university) origin, is an unsourced, un-peer-reviewed and uncited 40-page e-booklet that never made it to print. Its full definition of 'state atheism': "State Atheism State Atheism is the name given to the incorporation of *positive atheism or *non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems (see SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM). State Atheisms have tended to be as much *anti-clerical and *anti-religious as they are *anti-theist, and typically place heavy restrictions on acts of religious organization and the practice of religion.

State Atheist regimes are sometimes seen as examples of political *secularism because they entail a nonreligious form of government; these regimes are even sometimes described as 'radically secularist'. However, where political secularism is understood as political neutrality towards religion or religions, or even political neutrality towards any *worldview or *existential culture including not only theist but also atheist examples, State Atheism is considered non-secular."


 * So, again, with two other cited 'definitions' (that aren't, upon examination), the authors of this article would like to imply that all acts this article's authors deem 'anti-theist', 'anti-clerical' or 'anti-religious' 'are' "state atheism", and even attempt to WP:SYNTH-extend the 'state atheism' label to acts of removing religious dogma from public education, and all this in spite of the fact that most all of the sources used to support said events do not mention anything even similar to 'state atheism' at all.
 * Since 'state atheism' is utterly absent from all mainstream reliable sources, information about the origin, authors of and use of the label would be essential to this article.

Source evaluation
Source breakdown from the current revision:

Nota: it may seem at first as though the sources are several, but they are actually the same very few: when different quotes are taken from a same reference, the citation names were changed, therefore there are as many reference names as quoted texts.


 * Weasel-y part of citation removed, but essentially, yes. Neglects to say who is doing the associating.
 * Source author: Dr Stephen Bullivant (doctorate in Theology; not a historian)
 * Co-author: Dr Lois Lee (PhD in sociology - adheres to Bullivant's methods and terminology )


 * Claim unsupported by source: source cited is referring specifically to the acts of soviet-esque systems, whereas cited claim is not. Again, this is a set-up 'license' to include all acts of secularisation (from any country) in this article as 'state atheism', even when no sources describing the acts support this claim.
 * Author: same as #1 (Dr Stephen Bullivant (doctorate in Theology; not a historian))
 * Co-Author: Dr. Michael Ruse - Doctorate in Sociology, specialises in Science-Religion relations).


 * Same source as precedent (Dr Stephen Bullivant (doctorate in Theology; not a historian)).
 * Claim unsupported by first source, which is referring specifically to the acts of soviet-esque systems. Yet the unsupported claim being presented, again, as a license to label any and all acts of anti-clericalism as 'state atheism' (even if sources describing these acts do not apply any such label or make any such claim). 'Widening the net' set-up in the name of WP:SYNTH.
 * The full quote of the second source is: "The first model of "political atheism" could also be labelled as "totalitarian atheism". In this model, atheism is a state doctrine..." Again, claim neglects to mention that the 'totalitarian' aspects of the citation, and instead presents it as a generalised 'any act of anti-clericalism' ("is state atheism, too!")... more WP:SYNTH 'widening the net' set-up.


 * Only third source uses 'state atheism' label... gee whiz, Theology-Doctor Bullivant is an author-editor of this one, too.
 * But it is good that the label is being applied to soviet-esque countries specifically (as sources seem to).


 * Claim uses same (second) source as precedent, but that source speaks of comparative studies (how few were done) on 'atheism' whose result was a designation of 'country-types': no mention of any 'long history of state atheism', 'social success by staying away from houses of worship'... perhaps source is only for the seond sentence (meaning that the first is unsourced), but even there, the source speaks of 'strong consequences', not 'strong policies'. Source probably, again, chosen 'because uses label'.


 * 1) This source doesn't go into policy specifics, either (as the text does), and cites the Czech Republic and Eastern Germany as examples (amongst others). Passable, but again source researched after-the-fact 'because uses label'.


 * 1) First sources do contain terms variations of 'state atheism', but only the second sentence is supported by these. What does 'officially atheist' even mean (Removing religion from education? Not promoting (one) religion (over another)? Who is claiming that these qualify as 'state atheism'? Not the sources, so... the wikipedia authors are.


 * 1) WP:ESSAY in pursuit of WP:SYNTH - here it is the wikipedian authors trying to 'define' state atheism for what it 'is not'... and the source only hazily covers the claim.


 * 1) WP:OFFTOPIC. Which 'states' (wikipedian choice of term, not source's ('territories')), who is doing the declaring? Not useful information wise, but this part's sole purpose seems to be as a follow-up to #8, again with the weasel-y third-person voice of authority that insinuates 'common knowledge', but a single study does not a generally accepted designation make. 'Useful' only as a vague 'some countries do not subsidise religions (doing whatever they want)' declaration and as an 'atheism vs. religion' line-in-the-sand. Uninformative, but very representative of the article WP:POV.

Communist states
Overall problem: the 'need' to place this title speaks for itself, as because 'atate atheism' is a term utterly absent from most all reliable mainstream historical references, this article's authors must construct yet another argument to 'justify' including everything 'things bad done to religion' sources contribute to a communist state or some form of idealogical despotism. Yet, again, the inclusion of all below in a 'state atheism' article is a tacit claim that they "are" 'state atheism'... WP:SYNTH.


 * No mention of 'state atheism' (or derivatives thereof) in the source, so WP:OFFTOPIC WP:SYNTH.


 * 'State atheism' or even 'atheist state' absent from both sources.
 * "communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant..." claim is 'supported' by a 'source' that is... an in-Russian link to Lenin's works that doesn't at all echo the claim. In any case, the absence of 'state atheism' or even derivative makes both WP:OFFTOPIC trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * as before: No mention of 'state atheism' or derivatives in the source, so WP:ESSAY trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.


 * Again no mention of 'state atheism' or derivatives in the source, and "several religious communist groups exist" is a decidedly WP:OFFTOPIC claim that argues against the existance of any 'state atheism'.


 * If one was to actually read that source, they would find that it is a work entirely against the religious 'because atheism' accusation (that the title ironically apes). Text inaccessible (quote?) in this source, but, supported or not, this phrase's role here is but more WP:SYNTH-filler trivia.


 * The presence of 'state atheism' in this work is probably the only reason it was chosen as a source, because, again, this work is quite against the 'state atheism' case this article tries to make, which is why it was quote-mined. The first quote, in context: "So, we can see how Soviet Communism is already two steps removed from the central beliefs of atheism. First, communism is just one atheist belief, and certainly not the most popular one. Second, (insert 'mined' quote here)".
 * The entire quote is: "There is, however, a need to remember that militant or fundamentalist atheism, which seeks to overturn religious belief by force, is as dangerous as any other form of fundamentalism. Atheism's most authentic political expression thus takes the form of state secularism, not state atheism." I'm not sure what the second quote is doing here, as it is an argument against any 'state atheism'.
 * This section seems to be but a WP:SYNTH "building a case because 'same-ish' words" lead-in for the WP:SYNTH in the sections that follow.