Template talk:Atheism sidebar

Related concepts
I just reverted the removal of much of the "related concepts" section of the template, but I recognize that shortening that part is a legitimate issue to consider, so, let's discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop from pushing down other templates
Is there a way to stop this template from pushing down other templates like what the box does to the quote templates in Russell's teapot? Sizeofint (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On possibly removing the Atheist Alliance International symbol
There is some discussion at Talk:Atheism concerning the appropriateness of the Atheist Alliance International symbol in this template. I would like to suggest that it be removed, since atheism, as a concept, is much broader than anything represented by any particular alliance, and, indeed, as an IP editor has noted, atheistic belief is sometimes actually "not organized". Do people support removing the Atheist Alliance International symbol from this template? (Pinging: ) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said there when I saw the IP's request and your response, yes, I support its removal. Doug Weller  talk 17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why do we need a symbol?  AAI may want a corporate logo which is relevant to their pages but atheism per se does not need logos, creeds or organisations.  Religious bodies may require logos to ensure their adherents only accept the approved doctrine but since atheism has no mystic doctrines and bodies to promulgate them, we don't! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree - Since atheism doesn't (and couldn't) have an official symbol or logo, neither should its associated Wikipedia templates. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the Atheist Alliance International symbol from this sidebar. To me, it is the equivalent of using the Golden Arches as a symbol to represent all fast food. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

✅ I went ahead and removed it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

People
How is the list of people determined? There are plenty more notable atheists that could be included—historically and contemporarily.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone who should be listed isn't, that's probably just because nobody thought of it. So long as there is solid sourcing, you should feel free to add more pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have quite a few, but I don't know how inclusive the list should be. Many notable people are atheists, but focus primarily (in their writings, speeches, philosophies, etc.) on secularism, free-thought, and even feminism. A perfect example to illustrate the point is Annie Laurie Gaylor. Runs a secular organization, promotes atheism, freethinking, feminism, etc. but has not published a major text specifically focused on atheism unlike, say, Hitchens. Another example would be Stephen Pinker.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  23:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good question. I wouldn't add someone simply because they are know to be atheist. I think a reasonable criterion would be that atheism is a significant part of what makes them notable. The idea of a defining characteristic at WP:Defining is in terms of categories, but I think the concept would work here as well. They don't need to have written a major text on it, but they should in some way be noted for being involved with it. So I'd say that promoting atheism is enough, but just being an atheist but being famous for something unrelated to atheism is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at those two pages, and I'd say Gaylor definitely yes, and Pinker no. A good way to check is if the word atheism is in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I wanted to list them here first before inclusion: Michael Martin, Susan Jacoby, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sikivu Hutchinson, Kai Nielsen, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Stephen Pinker, Quentin Smith, Julia Sweeney, Lawrence M. Krauss, Friedrich Nietzsche, A. J. Ayer , Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Anne Nicol Gaylor, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Dan Barker, Greta Christina, Richard Carrier, Jerry Coyne , Victor J. Stenger, Michael Shermer, A. C. Grayling, James Randi , Peter Singer , Stephen Hawking , P.Z. Myers , Bill Maher, David Silverman, Polly Toynbee , Ophelia Benson, Robert Wright , Paul Kurtz, Alexander Rosenberg , among others. Some may not be entirely "eligible" for inclusion, but these are the people I can think of.
 * I agree, the leads can serve as a proxy, though not in all cases. I agree with the Stephen Pinker conclusion. He discuses atheism, but that is not what makes him notable.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  00:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the ones who rest in the gray area—with reasons:
 * Susan Jacoby - major publisher of secularism, freethinking, anti-intellectualism, and irreligion. Which is most emphasized for what she is notable for?
 * Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Known for hundreds of different issues. Outright critic of Islam and has been involved with the 4 Horsemen. Is this what she is most notable for?
 * Jennifer Michael Hecht - notable for poetry but has also become a critic of religion and promoter of atheism in recent years. Does career chronology signify notability? Does an individuals notability rest with what they became known for, or what they are notable for now?
 * Quentin Smith - mix of atheism and philosophy.
 * Julia Sweeney - Actress, but has become involved in atheism. Some published atheist-related books. Board member of several atheist organizations.
 * Lawrence M. Krauss - Originally known for his scientific contributions but has recently become widely regarded for his anti-theism. Part of a major film with Dawkins about atheism. Associates with proiminate atheists.
 * Friedrich Nietzsche - Critic of religion, atheist, but also known for tons of other ideas. Is atheism critical for his notability?
 * Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - known for tons of stuff. A huge factor for his notability is atheism, but not all of it. An entire article is devoted to his religious views.
 * Richard Carrier - biblical scholar and publisher of biblical criticisms. Also an atheist activist.
 * Bill Maher - known as a liberal political commentator but also equally well known for his explicit criticism of religion.
 * Ophelia Benson - involved in some atheist activism, some publications/blogs, but still a tough call.
 * Paul Kurtz - a secular humanist, published tons of secularist and humanist literature. Is this "atheism"?
 *  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  01:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shocked that Sam Harris is not even mentioned, yet the "4 Horsemen" are. Sam Harris is one of the Four Horsemen and feel like we don't need to even discuss it, so I added Sam Harris to the list. Sorry, I only checked the Talk page after the fact, but again, the Four Horsemen are already acknowledged here and three of the four were already on the list, so felt like we need to complete that. Gilawson (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Old icon
Would it be appropriate to bring it back? See |this old revision. It was fitting, I think. Since Atheism is of Greek etymology and that image had an early mention of it. But in any case it would be interesting to have a discussion on it - I mean the Theism infobox lacks an image as well, as its a broad subject. Same could be said of Atheism, since its simply a lack of belief in metaphysical things and isn't a uniform system either. But images always look cool, so I think its worth discussing. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)