Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Atheism

 * previous fac (May 31, 2006)

After copious discussion and overhauling, this article looks very little like its former self (compare to a month ago, or tot the last FAC attempt a year ago). The article has underwent ridiculous amounts of deweaselfication and prosification, and multiple sections have been rewritten from scratch (e.g. workspace for rewrite of "Reasons" section). It is now fit to be Featured.

With the help of the regular editors of the article (who have provided excellent discussion and input), I will bring this article to Featured status. If you have any objections, please clearly explain what you believe is wrong and how you suggest to fix it, as I intend to resolve any and all objections, and implement any other improvements suggested here.


 * Emphatic support. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 15:12Z
 * Comment It's got an NPOV tag on the criticism section, does this article meet the stability criteria? Aaron Bowen 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Something must be done reagarding the N:POV tag. - 凶 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I added that tag, and forgot to remove it after I was done cleaning up the weaselness. My bad :) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 16:02Z
 * Support -Taken care of. - 凶 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Could use copyediting at places, but it's good.
 * A bit puzzled with the referencing in the article, maybe rename "Footnotes and citations" to simply "Notes"?
 * Always capitalize "God" when used singular.
 * ...and even reject the existence of a personal, creator God.[6][64] but in recent years - Remove "but" as it doesn't oppose the prior statement. Capitalize the sentence beginning.
 * He argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism - a more superior basis?
 * It is argued that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary - By who?
 * Rename the Psychological, sociological, economical arguments section to Psychological, sociological and economical arguments.
 * ..and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations - Remove "that".
 * The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, and thus are considered arguments against atheism - "and thus" wouldn't work here, how about "The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, which thus are considered arguments against atheism".
 * They argue that if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, then why is there evil and suffering in the world, and why is God's love hidden from many people? - Avoid questions in context. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I'll update here as I've made these changes. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 20:59Z
 * Done: I made all of your suggested changes, except for adding "more superior", since replacing "superior" with it's definition, "of higher grade or quality", still made sense. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 23:39Z
 * As I've said, it could still use copyediting at places. I will not retract my original weak support for now. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I and a few others have copyedited the grammar/style of the article thoroughly since your original vote. Where does it still need copyediting? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 17:47Z
 * I still see problems in the article's early sections:
 * such as secularism, empiricism, agnosticism (in the case of weak atheism), or the Brights movement - No need in bolding here.
 * According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak atheist or a strong atheist. - Either a weak or strong atheist.
 * It has been contended that this broad definition includes even newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas - Remove "that" and "even".
 * They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there evil and suffering, and where His love is hidden from many people - "There's", "and omnibenevolent", uncapitalize "His". Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Thanks for the suggestions! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:22Z
 * I'm not really clear on why you say that "god" must always be capitalized when used in the singular form. Speaking generally about a deity does not necessitate its capitalization. One could make the argument that referring to the specific Christian god-concept might should be capitalized, but if use of "proper" names of deities is required like that, then it follows that references to the Jewish god should be changed to Yahweh and the Islamic god to Allah. Whitney (Talk) 11 April 2007 22:26 (CDT)
 * I disagree with the change of "Footnotes and citations" to "Notes". "Notes" isn't sufficiently descriptive: it should be kept clear that this section is full of citations. How about "Notes and citations"?
 * Maybe, but it should be noted that "citations" are equal to "references". Some of the notes lead to the actual references, so it wouldn't be justified to label them as such. Michael as 10 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that god should always be capitalized in the singular; it should only be capitalized when it refers to the specific individual referenced at God, rather than to deities (or male deities) in general. So, for example, whether "the existence of a god or gods" should be changed to "the existence of a God or gods" is debatable, especially considering the "a".
 * It's debated, but so far it appears to be the standard in religion-related articles. Perhaps move the discussion to WT:MOS? Michael as 10 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree (as BRIAN0918 did) with the redundant and erroneous change of "superior" to "more superior". In this context, such a phrasing is as ungrammatical as "more better", and it is moreover inaccurate, as Baggini doesn't consider theism to be a "superior basis for ethics" (even one that's not quite as "superior" as atheism); in fact, he considers it to be an inferior, weak one to an extreme degree, not merely a "less superior" one.
 * I disagree with the removal of "that" from "and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations"; this removal changes the argument from one of Baggini's to one of Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia should not take sides on such issues. -Silence 08:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "that" is already used earlier in the sentence. As Julian Baggini doesn't argue two separate things, repeating the word twice would be redundant. Michael as 10 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.
 * In the third paragraph, "conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism." was ok, but now its undefined since the negative def is not introduced in the lead. Perhaps the neg. def can be omitted and the explanation reworded, because I am not sure how significant the neg. def is in the cited literature. But if its really needed here, perhaps it can be introduced and defined at the end of the second paragraph, with respect to the change in scope. Modocc 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrected, by omitting and simplified by paraphrasing the sources. Modocc 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Implicit/Explicit section and its article seem unbalanced, and that some opposing view(s) of affirmation recognition should be included in these.Modocc 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What sort of opposing views? The Distinctions section is more for explaining the different classifications. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 18:37Z
 * This section includes rational for the classification, "infants are atheists", either this should go, or the prevailing view that "infants are not atheists" should be included to add balance.Modocc 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "prevailing view" is not the only view. The purpose of the section "Implicit/Explicit" is to record one way in which definitions of 'atheism' differ.  What you contend to be the "prevailing view" is the "Explicit" definition. The idea that newborns are atheist would fall under the "Implicit" definition. johnpseudo 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the explicit view is given no attention, after considerable attention is given to quoting original views expressed under the implicit def.Modocc 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a minor change to the section. Let me know what you think.  The reason "implicit" has less prose than "explicit" is because the classification system is easier to define in that way- the mention of newborns serves to define the limits of implicit atheism. johnpseudo 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Better, at least the weight, especially if the references also make it clear that the implicit view is less common. Its sterile. But,   at least it puts their work into perspective. Thanks. Modocc 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment leaning toward Oppose: Why the need for a separate "Criticism" section? It's much better to incorporate criticisms throughout the article in the appropriate sections rather than casting them into the troll-magnet ghetto of their own self-contained world. I'm hesitant to support any FAC that includes such a section as a violation of Criterion 1(a). — Brian ( talk ) 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of the pejoritive history of "atheism", the article actually contains a lot of criticism in sections other than the "Criticism" section. I actually thought the same thing as you in the past about how criticism should be put in appropriate places throughout the article, instead of being dumped in one section, but after my 2nd Featured article almost didn't pass FAC because there was no Criticism section, I just believed that's how it's supposed to be around here. Let's see what others have to say. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 12:56Z
 * Actually, after reading Criticism, I'm now more inclined to disperse the various contents of the current Criticism section to their relevant parts. Watch for upcoming changes to the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 13:01Z
 * Good to hear. It's otherwise looking very nice. — Brian ( talk ) 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest to spread the criticism into the whole article, but leaving a "criticism" section that drives the reader pointing to the main critical arguments of the article.--BMF81 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Much better looking than last time this was a FA Candidate good work Max 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Support A significant improvement indeed. The article demonstrates the best of what Wikipedia offers, with all sides of a controversial philosophy well represented. All research is properly supported and referenced. I'd like to see this work carried into related/sub articles. -- Scjessey 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral Support This is a major improvement. <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 , I really like the work you have put into this, especially to simplify and clarify the article and put more emphasis on the interesting issues. I really like what has been done. I will try to see, if I can't help with anything in the days to come. For now I just want to say, great work! --Merzul 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I still think this is a major improvement, I was certainly too hasty to support FA status. I'm naturally not opposed either, but at the very least the citation system must be made consistent before this is featured, and personally I think User:Silence's approval is important. --Merzul 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think one user should have the final say over any article. Most of his suggestions are attempts, as johnpseudo put it, to turn mostly good prose into brilliant (or better) prose; such suggestions are fine, but they shouldn't prohibit featured status. If you can make specific suggestions, I'll be happy to address them. What is wrong with the current citation system? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 14:25Z
 * Done As you know, the citation system has been made consistent. Will you change to Weak/Strong Support now? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-20 14:55Z
 * I'm essentially back to support, but there are a few minor things left, and I will try to address some of that myself. I will post below. (re Silence, I would just personally like his approval of the article, it's not something that should block the FA process). --Merzul 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Very good article. However, I would suggest to move "Atheist organizations" to the end. That way the prose wouldn't be disrupted by this rather long list and I personally consider the two sections below more informative and interesting. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 17:35Z
 * On a second look, I think there is a problem with the naming of the "Notes" and "References" sections. "References" appears like a "Bibliography" to me, while "Notes" seems like the actual references section with direct citations, should probably be renamed to "Footnotes and references". Also, throwing both (explanatory) footnotes and references/sources together into one section is not ideal imho; I personally prefer to keep them separated.  -- EnemyOfTheState 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:LAYOUT. Also, if all of the sources listed in References weren't actually used in writing the article, those that aren't sources should be moved to a Further reading or External links section (with a *very* good reason needed for adding an External link that isn't used as a source).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Emphatic support. What a vast improvement! &mdash;  Whitney  (Talk) &bull; 11 April 2007 22:32 (CDT)


 * Oppose. Please fix the section headings (read WP:MSH).  Also, please read WP:NOT re: Atheist organizations sections.  Wiki is not a web directory. There are also WP:DASH problems throughout.  A fresh set of uninvolved eyes should run through the entire text.  Vast improvements in an article isn't reason for featuring it; meeting current standards is. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've made your suggested changes. Thanks for the help! I'm not sure what you mean by "fresh set of uninvolved eyes"; AFAIK, the following users were uninvolved with the article before supplying their Support rationale above: Dark Dragon Flame, Michaelas10, BrianSmithson, Grosscha, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc, and WhitneyGH. If you have any more suggestions, please list them. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 14:42Z
 * That was fast. Now, please spend some time cleaning up the messy footnotes.  See WP:CITE/ES.  Websources need publisher, author and date when available, and last access date; your inclusion of that kind of info is spotty and inconsistent, and it's not clear if all websources are WP:RS.  Examples only, starting from the botton of the notes list:  The BBC websources have last update dates on the pages, which aren't included.  Date on the Harris Poll?  Data on the Nature article?   A zpub source linked to EB ?  Who published the Price article, full date pls.   Why is allrefer.com reliable? Publisher on the Stein article?  I didn't review the top 50 notes; these are samples.  By fresh set of eyes, I mean an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month.  I found some awkward prose, but I'm not good at analyzing prose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In progress. Your suggested changes are currently being made. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 15:27Z
 * I'll check back tonight; appreciate the fast work! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I'm fairly sure that all the refs have been fixed as you requested. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions. As for "an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month"... the following users in their Support mentioned nothing about the improvement: Dark_Dragon_Flame, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc. And who's to say that the ones who do mention the "vast improvement" didn't check out the prose? If you can cite problems, I'll fix them, but please don't oppose for no reason. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 17:09Z
 * I'm continuing to pick away at cleaning up the references. It's not clear that all websources are reliable sources (e.g.; what is rationalrevolution.net), but it is clear that there are 1a, copyedit issues.  Sample prose:
 * Following the French Revolution, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophies, and many prominent 19th-century German philosophers denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche (see "God is dead"). And, that usage (see [link]) throughout is indicative of prose problems; the links should be worked seemlessly into the text. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I removed the useless SeeAlso's and incorporated the useful ones into the text. I also removed the RationalRevolution source and the relevant unsourced (and not very useful) text. Thanks for the suggestion! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 14:13Z
 * Referencing and sourcing concerns resolved. I'm relieved to see the parentheticals removed from the lead and the See also parentheticals removed from the text, but I'm surprised that Tony approved of the prose.  I'd suggest continued work.  One example is two one-sentence paragraphs at the end of Early Indic religion. (Would you mind removing the green checks?  It is up to reviewers to indicate when concerns have been addressed by striking them.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better now :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further on the topic of dashes, can you please check the page numbers in the Radhakrishnan and Moore reference (currently ref 48) and then put an en-dash there, if appropriate? —xyzzyn 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I verified those page numbers, and converted the page number hyphens to ndash's. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 17:09Z
 * Most page numbers already had en-dashes; you just replaced them with HTML entities. Please revert . And what exactly does 227–49 mean? −178 pages? —xyzzyn 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the page # confusion (227 to 249). According to WP:DASH, you should use the HTML entity, but typing in the endash directly is alright as well. The revert isn't necessary. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 17:36Z
 * Thanks for disambiguating to 249. As for WP:DASH, ‘avoid typing their related codes (e.g., &amp;ndash; for en dash) to display dashes’ seems quite unambiguous to me. —xyzzyn 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It also says, above that, "Use the HTML entity &amp;ndash;". The reason for your quote is just clutter. Either one is fine. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 18:48Z
 * Actually, the main reason is that my way doesn’t involve an additional layer of code, which means that editors see the same thing in the edit box and the rendered article (instead of having to know/figure out entities). The saving of five bytes per instance isn’t very big (although I expect Sandy might disagree…). —xyzzyn 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Late to the party. xy, I'm lost.  Type in the ndash, or use the actual character from below the reply screen?  I've never been clear on that.  The article is *VERY* slow loading. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those HTML codes have nothing to do with speed with which the article loads. See how long this page takes to load: User talk:Brian0918/test. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 19:30Z
 * Goodness, this page is slow to load and hard to work on. I doubt it's the dashes, but it sure could be the Harvard ref notes: I converted another article which used this system long ago as it was impossibly slow to edit and work on the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DONE! The ref/note system has been ditched, and the article loads much faster! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 13:42Z


 * Support—Well-written. But please change "utilize" to "use". I'd prefer "people" rather than "man", as inclusive of not just 49.5% of humans—even though the philosophers referred to would have used the generic male. Tony 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Thanks for the suggestions! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-12 23:07Z

That's what I found with about one and a half read-throughs. I had a very hard time reading all of the way through, as we supporters or objectors are asked to do, because it really is thick reading. I was able to get through it by writing down problems, and then getting back to the text. I certainly commend you for greatly improving the article, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily ready to be a featured article. Anyway, good luck! Enuja 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Added #14 Enuja 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Struck out most of the points, changed from Oppose to weak support. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support because of the very impressive restructuring. There are still some style issues with the wording, but the re-organization is really well done! Oppose  The prose is awkward throughout the article, although it does improve near the end. Much of the philosophical discussion is wrapped in jargon, and there are far too many long sentences with many clauses.  My specific problems include:
 * 1) Why is there a History of Typology section and a Historysection?  This isn't the only place that different parts of the article echo each other in unconnected, somewhat dissonant, and still repetitive ways.
 * Done I restructed the whole thing, eliminating the "History of typology" section, moving any useful bits to their relevant places, and deleting any redundant content. It's much improved. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:52Z
 * 1) The parenthetical lead section.  Parentheses usually a poor way to present information, and in this case I had to read that second sentence a few times to get what it meant.   When I pull that sentence apart, each bit is clear and concise, but as a whole it is very difficult to process.
 * Done It's been split up with semicolons and em-dashes. If this not sufficient, please suggest a better alternative. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:14Z
 * How about "Definitions of atheism vary in range from disbelief in specific conceptions of God to disbelief in anything supernatural, in degree from absence of belief in gods to positive belief in nonexistence and in recognition from the implicit unbelief of an infant to an explicit statement of disbelief." I tried to edit this myself but was defeated by the huuuuge notes.  See below. Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be some sort of punctuation between "range/degree/recognition" and "from"? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 12:01Z
 * The current version, without all the details, is wonderful. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that the term orginated as a pejorative is repeated too often; it appears 1) in the lead, 2) third paragraph in Etymology, 3) beginning of History of Typology 4) in Classical antiquity, last paragraph 5)Modern Advancement, opening sentence.  Also, why does the History of Typology section have a "further information" link to Discrimination against atheists?
 * Done It took a lot of work, but I restructured the whole thing, and moved the separate parts of the "History of typology" section to their various places (deleting a lot of repeated, unnecessary text in the process). It's much improved. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:48Z
 * 1) Why is there a section named ""typology", especially as the rationale for atheism could also be called a "type" of atheism and is a different section?  I looked up what a "typology" would be, and I'm not convinced that this a clear and useful heading.
 * Done I restructed and renamed the whole thing, removing the redundant bits. It's a lot better now. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:49Z
 * 1) Bourne quote in Practical versus contemplative.  I had to read it several times to figure out what it meant, and I don't think it's doing any good there.  You do need a source to say that "the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied," but a primary source isn't even a good way of sourcing that type of thing.
 * Done That quote was annoying me too. I've removed those sentences, since they're not very useful and largely unsourced. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:55Z
 * 1) In the Association with a positive assertion section, agnosticism does not "result" in weak atheism.  I suspect that parentheses is trying to communicate that agnosticism is a euphemism for weak atheism.
 * Done I changed "resulting in weak atheism" to "in the case of weak atheism". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:19Z
 * 1) In Strong versus weak, I don't think that a speech archived on the web is a good source for "strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist"
 * Done I removed that whole sentence. No good source and not likely to have one. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:23Z
 * 1) Other distinctions is, in fact, just about Richard Dawkins.  I'd cut it entirely.  ("Yet other distinctions exist." is a particularly poor sentence, especially to lead off a section with, so if you keep this section, do improve it.)
 * Done I also thought it should be removed, but wanted to see what others thought. Gone. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:25Z
 * 1) The practical atheism section of "rational" is strangely unconnected to the practical vs. contemplative section of the History section.  This is more of that "echoing" problem I mentioned in pt #1.
 * Done I restructured the whole thing and deleted the redundant bits where necessary. It's a lot better now. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 13:51Z
 * 1) Also in the practical atheism section:"Within the scientific community, practical atheism is exhibited in the form of methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."" implies that all members of the scientific community are practical atheists
 * 2) *I've attempted to reword the sentence a bit; it only applies to those who practice methodological naturalism. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 14:41Z
 * I've reworded it myself; now that sentence feels like maybe the idea should be in the bulleted list below, but at least it's more concise. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) At the end of the Early Indic Religion section, I'm skeptical that Taoism is the "rejection of a personal, creator God."  Did the concept of a personal, creator God exist before Taoism?  I'm also a bit surprised and taken aback that a Chinese tradition is mentioned under a category of "Indic Religion."
 * Done I removed the Taoism reference. It never had a source, and when the section was renamed to "Indic religion", it became completely out of place. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:28Z
 * 1) What's with the long quote from Lucretius in the Classical antiquity section?
 * Done Moved the quote to the Notes section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:32Z
 * I think it's almost as bad in a notes section: see below.Enuja 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've removed the quote from Lucretius. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-16 14:09Z
 * 1) In Atheism, Religion, and Morality, the sentence "Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism." is cited only for Harris, not for Dawkins.
 * Done Removed mention of Dawkins. I've heard him say similar things before, but I'm not sure where it can be found in writing. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 04:34Z
 * 1) Most of the captions on the pictures are far too long.  Many of them would work as picture of the day extended captions, but as small text that goes under a picture, they are just hard to read.   If you have lots of text that goes with a picture, put the text in the article and the picture near that article.   Instead of being illustrative and a nice rest for one's eyes, the over-captioned pictures are actually wordy and intimidating.
 * 2) *People read through articles in different ways. Some only read the lead section, some skip around a lot, others go straight to the pictures. I had the last group in mind when I put in pictures with interesting, detailed captions. The captions are used to pull those readers in to reading the rest of the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 14:00Z
 * 3) *Done? Several of the captions have been reduced in length substantially. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-16 14:15Z
 * Much better. Some of the captions are still a bit long, I can live with it.
 * Thanks for the suggestions! Many of the parts you cite as problems were edits made after I nominated the article for FAC. I'll let you know how it goes. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 03:59Z
 * Okay, I've read over the article again, and I'm going to stick with weak support. The prose simply isn't up to snuff, and that's not the kind of thing you can improve by following specific comments that specific editors have.  It needs a nice, long bath in grammatical clarity, given when it isn't on featured article review and isn't on, about to be on, or just on the main page.  In other words, this article needs to be content stable, then it needs a bunch of work before it should be grammerical stable.  It is a very complete and explanatory article on a tough to write about subject, though.  Enuja 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but it'd be better if you could list actual problems you encountered while reading through the article. Which sentences were unclear or in need of rewriting? Please be more specific. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 04:14Z


 * Comment I'm new to this Featured Article Review stuff. Personally, I don't think that long footnotes with prose or long quotes are very encyclopedic, but for all I know the consensus could be against me.  Is there such a consensus, policy, or guideline?  I can't find one.  Personally, I think that footnotes should have only references, but that might be going to far.  If clean, clear, short, readable footnotes is important for a featured article, then this article needs some serious pruning.  Lots of long footnotes also make it very difficult to read and edit the text.  Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes provide some useful context at times, although some are probably unnecessary. Given that most users don't have access to most of the sources (at least the ones that aren't online), it's useful to provide some quote to give context. However, I think there are excessive examples in Atheism, and I'll work on trimming them down. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 14:18Z
 * Enuja is on to something; since Dr pda wrote his prose size script, I can't recall seeing an FAC with such a high ref size for such a low prose size (Prose size 28 kB (4272 words); References (text only): 19 kB). The numbers do argue that a lot of prose is in the footnotes.  If that much explanation is needed in Footnotes, it makes me wonder if the text can't be written more clearly.   The ref size is the same as the extensively-cited, much-longer prose size article, DNA.  Based on the numbers, this may be something to address. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really the case here. The "prose" in the footnotes is for the most part just text copied from the sources to give context. A lot of it is unnecessary and can be removed, I believe. You can't equate the size of the footnotes section with a statement about the quality of the article, given that the footnotes are just copying/pasting what other people have said to provide supporting evidence. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 15:22Z
 * I've removed several of the long unnecessary citation quotes, and attempted to restructure the edit screen text for readability. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:32Z


 * Comment: Oh, my, are we back to those obnoxious green checks again ... they are so disruptive, and don't mean anything until the original reviewer strikes objects. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)
 * I actually use them to keep track of what I have done and what I haven't. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 14:38Z

Section break 1

 * Oppose. Various problems, but mainly the writing quality needs much improvement. In the first paragraph alone (will expand criticism later):
 * 1) Articles should generally begin with "[subject matter] is X", not "[subject matter] entails X", as term-definition comes before consequences.
 * 2) *We've had long discussions about this on the talk page, and the fact that there is no one definition of atheism means that, at best, we can only make a statement about the most fundamental necessary (but not sufficient) condition for atheism. Everyone agreed that "entails" was the best choice. This illustrates that things can't always be reduced to simple statements like "Atheism is...". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 15:26Z
 * 3) **As I see it, "is" doesn't imply that a condition is sufficient. If I say "a dog is an animal with four legs", that doesn't necessitate that all animals with four legs are dogs. In the same way, "atheism is disbelief in deities" doesn't imply that "disbelief" is the only necessary criterion for atheism, nor does it specify which definition of "disbelief" is in use; these two factors make it the simplest way to present in a clear manner what atheism's most universally defining characteristic is. In contrast, "Atheism entails", by skipping the process of actually defining the term (which is necessary even&mdash;nay, especially&mdash;for ambiguous terms) leaves open the idea that any belief system which entails the absence of belief in deities can be a definition of "atheism". For example, nihilism, naturalism, and solipsism all qualify as definitions of "atheism" (as opposed to just being "atheistic" or "nontheistic") under this usage. Hell, one could even argue that "Atheism entails the absence of belief in deities" without defining atheism allows any belief system (for example, capitalism, realism or catastrophism) that doesn't specifically affirm the existence of deities to be justifiably called "atheism". After all, an "absence of theism" is all that's required, right? However, if you really think that simply "Atheism is disbelief in deities" is unacceptable, then I recommend still using some other "Atheism is..." form for the first sentence. You could even keep the "entails" wording if you used something like "Atheism is any of a number of stances which entail a disbelief in the existence of God or other deities". -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Can a view really entail a belief/disbelief? Isn't that the same as saying a "belief that entails a belief"? Doesn't that make no sense? I want to make the change you're trying to suggest, but am not sure of the wording. If we say that "Atheism is any of a number of stances that entail the absence of belief...", then we are asserting that all of those stances are valid forms of atheism, when in fact we can only say that various people have asserted different forms of atheism as valid. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 08:15Z
 * 5) ***Also, we can't call atheism a view/stance, because implicit weak atheism is not a positive assertion; it's been claimed that newborn babies are implicit weak atheists, and they certainly wouldn't be holding a view/stance. How about "a state of mind"? Or is that too obscure? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 08:19Z
 * 6) ***Done We've had more discussion about it and modified the lead to read "In the broadest sense, atheism is..." and then explained the other definitions. I think this is an improvement. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:26Z
 * 7) "[Atheism] contrasts with theism" is awkward.
 * 8) *How? It seems alright to me, but if you can suggest something better, please do. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 15:26Z
 * 9) **"Contrasts" has a number of different meanings; the most common meaning is exactly the opposite, in terms of the agent, of this one (that is, the one which would say "Atheism is contrasted with theism" rather than "Atheism contrasts with theism"). A less ambiguous or unusual alternative would be preferable. Something with the meaning of "is the opposite of" or the like, for example, would also provide more specific and concrete information. -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ***Done Changed it to "It is the antithesis of theism..." &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:32Z
 * 11) "vary in multiple aspects" is needlessly opaque wording for what should be a simple idea. It is most important to use accessible language in a lead section, because the lead section is expected to "draw readers in".
 * 12) *Done I've attempted to avoid this problem by just stating how it varies. Let me know if this can be improved further. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 15:32Z
 * 13) The links to weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism are "easter eggs". Although I do not necessarily think this should be changed, as the solution might be worse than the problem, this is certainly a problem as Piped link makes it clear that "easter egg links" should be avoided whenever possible.
 * 14) *Done I've removed the links, since they're already specified later in the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 15:33Z
 * 15) I'm concerned that the "disbelief in anything supernatural" belief is being given undue weight here. Other ultra-broad understandings of atheism (for example, that it denotes irreligion) are at least as common as this one, yet the lead section seems to be endorsing the "naturalistic" understanding of atheism and condemning the "irreligious" understanding, without any real basis.
 * 16) *How do you suggest it be changed? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:12Z
 * 17) **I'd be tempted to simply remove it (as you seem to have done), and address such issues in the article body, where there's more room. -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) The grammar of the second sentence is extremely unusual. I've never seen clauses begun with dashes and ended with semicolons in a colon-following list. Again, accessibility is a major problem here; the first few paragraphs should be as smooth and fluid a read as possible, and not require readers to stop and reread a phrase a few times before they understand the sentence structure or meaning.
 * 19) *Done I've attempted to fix this problem. If you still don't believe it satisfactory, can you suggest an alternative? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:12Z
 * 20) "Positive belief in nonexistence" should be "positive belief in their nonexistence" or similar, else it implies that strong atheists simply believe in "nonexistence" (and that weak atheists don't). Avoid forcing readers to read too much into text or make too many implicatures, especially when dealing with difficult concepts.
 * 21) *Done Thanks for the suggestion! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:13Z
 * 22) In context, "explicit statement of disbelief" is a poor way of referencing explicit atheism, because the rest of the examples deal with beliefs, not propositions; "deliberate rejection of theism" or "conscious, active disbelief" or the like would convey the idea better.
 * 23) *Done Thanks for the suggestion! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:15Z
 * 24) **"the conscious rejection of theistic beliefs" isn't a very good way of putting it either, because it's needlessly convoluted: what "theistic beliefs" are being discussed? Isn't there only one relevant "theistic belief"&mdash;theism itself, the belief in deities?
 * 25) ***Done Changed "theistic beliefs" to "theism"... You could have done this yourself and saved all this back-and-forth :P &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:37Z
 * 26) Do we need such an extensive biography of Baron D'Holbach in his image description? Captions advises against such long blocks of text, and I certainly don't seed the necessity for having so much detail on this random person at the top of atheism; only the first sentence seems essential. If the rest is so important, why not transfer it to "History"? -Silence 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) *Captions says to keep captions succinct, not short. I can attempt to say things more clearly in less words, but I'm trying to use the images/captions to pull readers into reading the rest of the article. People read through articles in different ways. Some only read the lead section, some skip around a lot, others go straight to the pictures. I had the last group in mind when I put in pictures with interesting, detailed captions, to pull them in. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:18Z
 * 28) *Done I've shortened the caption a bit, removing the least interesting text. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 16:22Z
 * 29) **Adding lots and lots of words below images doesn't "pull readers in" to the text, it drives them away from it by scaring them with dueling columns of paragraphs. Simple, concise, and spartan but aesthetically appealing articles are more likely to "draw readers in" than ones with an excess of bells and whistles. People who only read the pictures are unlikely to bother with reading more than a couple of words of such a lengthy image caption anyway. -Silence 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) ***Done The caption has been shortened dramatically. While I don't necessarily like it, I understand others' concerns and will accept it. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-20 13:19Z
 * 31) Aside from the issue (which I've raised at #1) of whether it raises problems by being an overly loose requirement, "absence of belief" is arguably not a NPOV way to characterize what all forms of atheism "entails" because it lends favor to the "weak atheism" definers and ignores the "strong atheism" and "explicit atheism" ones. Although this is understandable on the grounds that the weak atheism one is broader, it is still problematic, and it seems like a problem which could be easily resolved by simply using "disbelief" instead, on the grounds that "disbelief" is a word that all three sides can agree on using, even if they disagree on what it means in this context (something we can address plenty later on anyway).
 * 32) *Done? "Disbelief" has different implications (as you have stated), so the use of that word is discouraged, as it is too ambiguous. I think the most recent version is an improvement, as it just lists the various ways definitions differ. Just because we have listed the minimal characteristic first doesn't mean that one is preferred, just that it's the only characteristic that all definitions contain. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:42Z
 * 33) I don't like the phrasing "Atheism entails X. This may be coupled with Y, as well as Z." The "may be coupled" doesn't clarify the nature of the disagreement, implying that anyone can/does vary their definitions from time to time, or that everyone agrees on all three definitions. We should be explicit in noting that there is a disagreement here about what is and isn't "entailed" in atheism. Remember that readers will have no idea of what the point of these first two sentences is unless we are completely clear about what the issue at hand is&mdash;and that issue is that there is a disagreement regarding how to define "atheism".
 * 34) *Done I think the recent change solves your problem. It gives the minimal characateristic, and then says "Other definitions couple this absence of belief with X, as well as Y." &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:43Z
 * 35) Most readers of Wikipedia can't read the Greek alphabet, so ἄθεος should probably be accompanied by "(atheos)", its romanization. I also question the necessity of including the word's etymology at all in the lead section, especially considering that it is explained immediately following the lead section, in Atheism. If it was lower down the page, I could see the purpose, but for such an early section including this redundancy just seems wasteful.
 * 36) *Done Added the romanization. The reason for the mention is so that we can explain how the definition started as a pejorative in ancient greek. It would be incorrect to state (as the article used to) that "The term atheism started as a pejorative in classical antiquity" since the english word didn't exist yet, so we have to state the greek version for clarity. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:46Z
 * 37) "anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions" could easily be shortened to just "anyone thought to hold beliefs that conflicted with established religions", since "false gods" and "no gods" both fall under that category anyway. "Polytheists deemed monotheistic views atheistic" needs a reference, and it may simply be easier to remove this sentence (including the clause about Christians), especially considering that there's no evidence that Christians were any more "persecuted as atheists" than any other group from that time period.
 * 38) *The point of that part is to list examples that would not be immediately obvious to the modern western mind. It's not obvious that belief in false gods would be called "atheism", or that Christians were once persecuted as atheists. I've added a reference for the Roman usage of the term. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 16:55Z
 * 39) The claim that freethought and scientific skepticism predate criticism of religion certainly needs a citation, at the very least.
 * 40) *Done I've attempted a clarification. It doesn't say that it predates criticism of religion, just that it led to more criticism of religion. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-15 16:57Z
 * 41) "application of the term became more limited in scope." should be reworded to specifically state that the term was now applied only to deniers of deities; in its current wording, some readers might misinterpret this phrase as saying that the word came to be applied less often, when in fact the reverse is the case.
 * 42) *Done I changed "became more limited in scope" to "narowed in scope". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 17:06Z
 * 43) "The first individuals to describe themselves as "atheists" appeared in the 18th century; today they amount to about 2% of the world population." - I wasn't aware that 2% of the world's population consisted of 18th-century atheists. Aside from that, this statistic is extremely problematic, and problematic statistics should always either be removed, or at least presented with explicit reference to the problems they raise. In this case, the main problem is that the 2% statistic applies neither to all people who self-identify as "atheists" (as is implied by context), nor to all people who can be safely called "atheists" based on the most common definitions of atheism. Encyclopedia Britannica notes that any respondents who professed "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion" were labeled atheists, whereas any respondents who professed "no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists" were labeled in a different category, "nonreligious". This is clearly problematic: first, none of the terms involved are mutually exclusive; second, many of the most pre-eminent atheistic philosophers would label many agnostics as "atheists", including even themselves! (see, e.g., Bertrand Russell); third, it seems completely arbitrary to qualify "freethinkers" and "nonbelievers" as nonreligious, but "skeptics" and "disbelievers" as atheists; fourth, it seems quite biased to label as nonreligious anyone "indifferent to all religion but not militantly so", but as atheistic "the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion)", as it suggests that one of atheism's primary defining characteristics is antireligion. These issues make it completely inappropriate for us to baldly state that 2% of the world's populace consists of atheists, without qualifying what the statistic in question does and doesn't consider an "atheist".
 * 44) *Maybe we can change it to "those who describe themselves in atheistic terms number about 2%" or "those who describe themselves in atheistic or nonreligious senses number about 15%"... Any suggestions for a way to say this that is concise, or should we just remove it? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 17:12Z
 * 45) *Done The sentences have been reworded so as to not redefine what the survey says. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 13:54Z
 * 46) "The most common of these are the problem of evil, the argument from nonbelief, and similar deductive arguments against certain divine traits or religious assertions" - According to whom? We need citations showing that these are the most common reasons for someone to be a self-described atheist. It seems to me that the "argument from nonbelief", although one of the most compelling logical arguments against certain deities in existence, is far from being common even among atheists, and that vastly weaker arguments like the argument from inconsistent revelations are dramatically more common. This sentence is also poor because it fails to clearly explain that these are only arguments against specific conceptions of God, not arguments against every deity (and therefore not really grounds for full atheism, by any common definition, even if they are very commonly presented as such). Furthermore, it is simply false to claim that most atheists base their views on deductive, rather than inductive, arguments; if anything, precisely the opposite is the case. "Other forms of rationale include epistemological, metaphysical, psychological and axiological arguments." is also a completely worthless sentence to our readers, providing no content or substance to the non-philosophers. Compare this to the infinitely more accessible past versions of the article, e.g., "Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical."
 * 47) *Done I've implemented the past version, as it is well written. I've also included a sentence listing common examples, such as the problem of evil, argument from inconsistent revelations, and argument from nonbelief. The paragraph is much improved. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 17:54Z
 * 48) "In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unethical." - Powerful citations for both claims are needed. I am also baffled as to why "assumed to be irreligious or nonspiritual" was changed to "assumed to be irreligious or unethical", as (1) spirituality and ethicality are completely unrelated; (2) religiosity and spirituality are entirely distinct, and both important; (3) being ethical or unethical has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the sentence, making it a non sequitur when Buddhism is discussed unless the reader shares the text's presumption that Buddhism is "ethical", making it a satisfactory counter-example. Also, I don't see why Hinduism is mentioned in the lead section; "atheistic schools" can arguably be found in almost any widespread religion, even Christianity, but Buddhism is noteworthy as being the religion most commonly described as "atheistic". If we're trying to list other atheistic religions along with Buddhism (which I don't see a need for), Jainism is a much better candidate than Hinduism.
 * 49) *Done I switched "unethical" back to "unspiritual". I only changed it so that I could mention secular ethics in the same paragraph, although even that is problematic. I also removed the bit about Hinduism, again. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 17:58Z
 * 50) How are rationalism and naturalism ethical philosophies, much less "secular ethical" ones?
 * 51) *Done I think rationalism is an ethical philosophy, but not necessarily naturalism. I've removed "ethical". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 21:12Z
 * 52) I also don't think the last paragraph does nearly a good job as part versions of the article did as conveying in a fluid manner the fact that atheism is associated with certain philosophies, but that it doesn't entail any of those philosophies. Compare "In addition, atheism has been associated with secular ethical philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism. However, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere." to "Although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors that all atheists adhere to." In fact, the whole lead section comes across as extremely disjointed for the most part. There is no clear flow of ideas, and things brought up in the last paragraph are often forgotten about in the next (e.g., the definitional issues brought up in the first paragraph seem to be brushed under the rug starting in the second, although being careful to discuss "self-described atheists" is of huge help in sidestepping this problem). -Silence 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 53) *Done Changed wording to the older, better version (I was unaware of that better version). As for the rest of the lead, I think the flow is much better now. Let me know what you think. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-15 21:16Z

Section break 2

 * Support. The only remaining flaws in the article are minor, mostly "good" prose that could be "brilliant". Weak Support. Weak Oppose The only weak part of the article left is its header. It still needs-
 * 1) A better first sentence- one that encompasses both the "necessary" elements of definition and the idea that it has a variety of definitions
 * 2) More availability, with fewer words like 'entails', 'conceptions', and 'disparaging'
 * 3) Smoother flow, giving the impression of having one broad idea instead of listing off a number of characteristics of atheism
 * 4) More relation to the rest of the article, with broad ideas that draw the reader into the more detailed explanations below (especially the under-mentioned sections 'distinctions' and 'rationale') instead of listing specific characteristics of atheism. johnpseudo 20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *I've attempted to clarify the first part, getting rid of the ambiguous all-inclusive sentence and just stating what the different definitions include. I've also tried to make it flow better. Let me know what you think. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 20:30Z
 * 6) **I really like what you've done with the first paragraph. The first three paragraphs almost give a comprehensive overview of the idea of atheism. They could still use mention of rationale and demographics. johnpseudo 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Agreed. That shouldn't be hard to fix. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-13 21:25Z
 * 8) ***I've added more history to improve the flow, and added demographic info. It reads much better now. I'm thinking we might need to add another paragraph, on the different rationale, since that's a big part of the article. Any thoughts? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-14 09:57Z
 * 9) ****More great improvements. I agree that the lead could use a paragraph concerning the rationale section, but no more than 2 sentences or so. johnpseudo 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) *****I've added a short paragraph which summarizes the section on Rationale. Let me know what you think (and please consider changing your vote to Support). Thanks for the help! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-14 18:44Z


 * Mild support - the article is better, but still needs work. Comments here should try to be related to Featured article criteria - and if not, comntemplated changes to the article should be presented on the articles talk pages. I mention this because text from cited referenced has been removed in response to criticisms here. I think this whole FAC process needs fixing - repeatedly single comments here come to rule the article --JimWae 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you make some suggestions for improvement? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-17 14:40Z


 * some comments:
 * On section "Atheism, religion and morality" the position attributed to "Baggini 2003" seems to be much older, a "classic"; maybe adding an older ref is needed. The same could be said on the next argument attributed to "Harris 2006" (abrahamic religion are inherently "masculinist" which is directly linked with patriarchy which is directly linked with authoritarianism and dogmatism).
 * Done I've added older journal article sources for the claim Harris makes. Some has probably asserted the same claims as Baggini, but without sources we can't make that statement. Can you find any? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-20 14:07Z
 * what about explicitly citing the standard position in anthropology that "each religion is created by its believers"? I've also read somewhere that from an anthropological point of view you can't have a religion without having an enemy (maybe this observation can be traced back to Émile Durkheim); so this could be cited as an argument for atheism to be more "pacific".
 * I think that's covered under Psychological arguments, although if it's not satisfactory, please make a suggestion, or be bold and add some content (with good sources of course). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 13:43Z
 * what is the criteion for ordering the subsections of section "rationale"?
 * I ordered those subsections based on the ordering used in the Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy that's the main source of that section. Do you think they should be ordered differently? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 13:13Z
 * in section "Anthropocentric arguments", after the last sentence on the absence of "moral or ethical foundation" (and in general of meaning of human actions) the classical response should be added: the ethics (and the meanings) must be invented by ourselves (as I know this argument can be traced back to Rousseau's The Social Contract)
 * The beginning of that subsection was supposed to make that view clear. Maybe it should be rearranged, presenting the theistic view first, and the anthropocentric argument 2nd. Any thoughts? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 14:46Z
 * Satire has been a major source of arguments against religion, with masterpieces from Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Dario Fo. What about dedicating a couple of phrases to it? One major subtext/meaning in this kind of works is that the laugh brought by satire forces us to face a little truth that we want to reject: God doesn't exist.
 * I haven't seen that brought up by any of the various histories of atheism. Where would you propose it go? What sources do you have for it? There is satire for/against every view; is there any reason (based on source rather than your perceptions) that we should specifically mention satire in this article? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 14:54Z
 * I wonder if the removal of quotes from notes (starting with this edit), based on SandyGeorgia "request" was a good idea. Some citings might enrich the article, and they're not inherently against the FA criteria. I suggest in the case of this quotes to keep "Cline 2006a" text which is more succint, and attribute this position also to "Stein 1980, p. 3", without including its lengthy text.
 * This is more appropriate for the article talk page since it doesn't have to do specifically with FA criteria, although I'm in favor of being less ambiguous rather than more. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 14:55Z
 * The origin of the word seems to be western-centric, so would this basically allow the article to be mostly west-centered?
 * The origin of the word and the origin of the concept are two different things. What are you suggesting? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 15:09Z
 * more on section "Atheism, religion and morality": the discussion on violence by inquisitions and communist states should bring to the argument that dogmatism is inherently dangerous; shouldn't this argument be explicitly presented as conclusion? (with appropriate source, of course).
 * That statement is ambiguous (dangerous in what sense, and to whom, and in what situations?) I really don't believe it belongs in the article. A discussion on the dangers of dogmatism might go in dogmatism, though. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 15:11Z

--BMF81 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * comment. It is unfortunate that there are only marginal references, when any, to Kaj Nielsen, Hume, Mill, Voltaire, Kant, Dostoevsky. I doubt on the article comprehensiveness.--BMF81 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? What leads you to believe it's not comprehensive? Which references don't you like? Which parts are lacking? If you're talking about History, the full article is at History of atheism; Atheism shouldn't have a comprehensive history, only a summary. Not much can be done without further elaboration. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-27 17:28Z
 * The unconvincing sections are Atheism, religion and morality and Anthropocentric arguments.--BMF81 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting should be done, or what is wrong? "Unconvincing" isn't very helpful. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-28 21:57Z
 * You seem blind to my objections, or maybe you just want me to do the work for you. Those section are missing arguments by the above listed authors.--BMF81 08:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a few unsourced things I found in the article, and it tagged them with fact. I would like to see them either sourced or removed before this becomes a featured article.--Sefringle 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions! Working on it... &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 01:53Z
 * Done Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 03:20Z


 * Oppose for a number of comprehensiveness and verifiability concerns:
 * Aside from some historical associations there is no description or analysis of the social and political impacts of atheism. Surely a set of philosophies that claim over 2% of the worlds population has had some type of impact.
 * I'm not sure what you're asking for here. The article discusses how atheism has been absorbed by society (often in a disparaging sense), how atheism has influenced political powers, etc. You need to be more specific; what is being left out? Any sources? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 03:41Z
 * Aside from brief mentions of state atheism in communist regimes, with associated anti-religious efforts, there is no mention of any atheist groups goals or activities. The article states the existence of "atheist organizations of military personnel", but implies that all the groups do is dispute claims of theist philosophers.  Is this a correct assessment of these groups activities?  There is also no mention of politically active groups such as American Atheists.  At a minimum the article needs a healthy sampling of what organized  atheist groups exist worldwide along with a brief summary of the groups goals and accomplishments. --Allen3 talk 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article did have a section on atheist organizations, but it was removed as requested in this FAC and other discussion, because other articles don't have sections listing their organizations (such as Christianity, or the featured articles Sikhism, Bahá'í Faith). As for the military organization, that's mentioned simply to illustrate the "no atheists in foxholes" debate, not to summarize the organization's activities. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 18:26Z
 * What ever the reason for the inclusion of the mention of the atheist organization, the mention demonstrates that such groups exist. This existence is important because it shows that atheism is more than a spectrum of loosely related philosophies and instead is important enough for people to organize.  In all three of the articles you listed there is information on the practices of each religion, along with a description of theological belief.  How are the actions taken by atheists in support of their beliefs any less applicable? --Allen3 talk 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you'd expect such a section to include. It seems like it would amount to nothing more than a list of mostly western lobbying/meetup groups, just like any section on "organizations" from any viewpoint, which is essentially what the old section looked like. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 13:11Z
 * There's an interesting piece here that asserts that strictly "atheist" groups don't really exist; rather, groups exist with atheistic views, but also with other views, and those other views are actively supported (eg humanism, secularism). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 14:30Z
 * The Criticism of atheism section needs further expansion, having missed classic appeals such as Pascal's Wager.
 * That section is not a complete list of criticism. The criticism has been spread throughout the article (as others have requested in this FAC and on the article talk page). The manual of style advises against creating "criticism of X" sections, and Jimbo called them troll magnets. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 03:41Z
 * Done. I restored mention of Pascal's wager to that section. It was there when I first put the article on FAC, but got cut out as the article went through a 2nd large overhaul. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-20 13:13Z
 * An explanation of how the Roman Catholic Church's control of universities prevented the development of atheistic philosophies at a time when a variety of Gnostic philosophies were able to develop needs to be added. (Early Middle Ages to the Enlightenment section)
 * Done That bit has been removed, and a more specific source has been added. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 03:41Z
 * While your change has addressed the letter of this item, it has done so by confusing historical facts and adding to the prose problems raised by several other reviewers. The Roman Catholic Church had limited influence in medieval Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire, yet we are to believe that Rome was able to control all European universities? --Allen3 talk 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Removed reference to the Church from that section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 18:32Z
 * A full reference to the "Mensa magazine" mentioned in the Demographics section needs to be added.
 * Done The magazine is their UK edition. The full citation is from Dawkin's book, and is part of the ref. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 03:41Z
 * Style issue - The word God is used in many places where diety or divinity are equally appropriate. Appropriate use of these synonyms will both improve readability and also help minimize conflict with various religous taboos.
 * This is more a discussion for the talk page, or maybe for the manual of style or Talk:God. Most Wikipedia articles have been using the proper noun to refer to a creator being, or interchangeably with "god"; OED has no preference. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-19 03:41Z
 * --Allen3 talk 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose Comment - The prose needs tightening. Sentences such as "Concerning the degree of refusal of theism, there are various subdivisions" don't convey much information. Likewise:
 * Other dichotomies have since been created to categorize the definitions of atheism. One of these dichotomies is between strong (positive) atheism, and weak (negative) atheism; this demarcation is used by philosophers such as Antony Flew[24] and Michael Martin.[25]
 * Would it not be clearer to say something like: "Philosophers Flew and Martin contrast strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism"? Some of the content of the history section is too simplistic. Averroes was quite highly regarded in medieval western thought. Likewise it seems rather POV to have "freethought was virtually unknown" followed by noting the "Church had complete control over universities". At the very minimum, the text should attribute such opinions to someone, ie "Gordon Stein wrote that it was unknown because ..." It might also be helpful to have a note somewhere on the distinction between "atheistic" and "atheist"(adj), as in "atheistic philosophers" and "atheist state". Gimmetrow 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done? Regarding "degree of refusal" sentence: it's an introductory sentence; it won't have much information. I've tried rewording it; if that is not satisfactory, please make a suggestion. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 00:55Z
 * The rewording with "demarcations" doesn't seem like an improvement. My point here is that the article has many such sentences which can be rephrased, as in the Flew/Martin suggestion. the text needs a copy edit. Gimmetrow 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The text has been copyedited by multiple people several times. Which sentences need improvement? You keep saying "many such sentences", but haven't specified anything. If you believe there still need to be improvements, the only way we can get anywhere is if you specify what needs improved... or even make the improvements yourself (the fastest solution). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-24 04:37Z
 * I thought I had suggested a sentence to work on. Editing takes a lot of time to do properly while maintaining all the ideas contained in the original. It's much easier if the original authors do it. Oh well. Gimmetrow 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've reworded the Flew/Martin sentence as requested. Thanks for the suggestion!
 * What is your source for Averroes? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 00:55Z
 * The history section still has serious problems. Just to focus on Averroes, part of his philosophy was to reconcile Aristotle with Islam, much like the medievals reconciled Aristotle and Christianity. As such, a rather nuanced notion of "freethought" is being attributed to him - a notion that would seem applies also to the medievals, who respected him as "The Commentator" for his understanding of Aristotle. The only way I can make sense of this section, it's either wrong, or POV. Given this and the prose issues, changing from "comment" to "oppose" at present. Gimmetrow 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done The mention of Averroes has been removed; it appears the source was using him as an example of how "contrary views" remained intact, not how "freethought" was being espoused. My bad. But it's been fixed. Thanks for the suggestion! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 04:47Z
 * OK, that's good for now. Gimmetrow 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break 3

 * comment. Very nice work so far, there are a few more things I would like to work on. Only the first one is a show-stopper.
 * 1) The lead paragraph. I'm afraid we can't feature this unless there is an adequate solution to the definition of atheism. However, I think there is good work on this currently.
 * 2) *The current first paragraph is the result of all that work, and it has lasted without debate for surprisingly long (considering how often it was changing before we came to the current agreement). There is no one definition of atheism; just as in an article like Meat, they need to explain the various definitions, so must atheism. Which is fine, if it's done right, and discussion has led to the current version as the best thus far. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 00:33Z
 * 3) *Yes, it is the best thus far, but I really hope you are right about the stability... We don't want the article to have to be protected once it gets on the main page. --Merzul 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) As said above by Enuja, I don't like the long quotations in the footnotes. Many of them seem to just validate the use of the sources. We should use talk-pages to verify source usage. The article itself should not try to convince other editors. I will work through all the refs, and only keep quotations that are genuinely helpful to the reader.
 * 5) *The only quotations I think should definitely be kept are the etymology ones (since they're pretty interesting and not easily verifiable). Others should be kept if the sources are hard to find or if page numbers aren't given for the sources (I'd suggest replacing the quote with a page number if possible). Thanks for the help! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 00:40Z
 * 6) The references section should contain the main quality sources used to inspire our general approach. Currently, Martin, Smith, and Baggini are good. I will move Zdybicka here, and remove Winston that we are using in 4 places every time citing the same page!
 * 7) *Thanks for the help! Zdybicka should definitely be moved to References. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 00:41Z
 * 8) A bit of a wish, but it would be very nice, if we could take the quality of sources up a notch. Add one or too more of these quality standard text-books to the reference section, and use them within the text to replace many of the website sources.
 * 9) *That's not really necessary, but shouldn't be too difficult to do. I would definitely be in favor of removing the Cline sources. Any books that have limited preview or searching abilities on Google Books or Amazon would be quick ways to switch sources over to paper. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 20:08Z
 * 10) I would also like to keep history of atheist thinking distinct from the political impact. Like the German article that has a section on the various impacts of atheism on society, in politics, religion, etc. (I have complained quite a bit on the talk page, that currently sources are mixed in a too innovative fashion.)
 * 11) *The German article doesn't really cover more than our article, they just have it organized differently. I don't really see the need to reorganize it based on their article; the Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, organizes it the same way we do. It doesn't seem right to split up the mention of Marx, and the mention of the communists who interpreted his work, for example; both should be part of the History of atheism. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 20:05Z
 * 12) **Ok, I agree making large structural changes is a very bad idea. --Merzul 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) *Which sources are you claiming are violating WP:SYN? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 20:10Z
 * 14) **I guess my real worry is that two related but still quite separate phenomena are intertwined in our history. One is the political advancement of atheism, or even antitheism, in the form of state atheism, and their decline, etc. The other is the fact that despite many predictions, it seems the world isn't secularizing, and instead the role of religion in a globalizing world is increasing. These two facts can be sources from many places, but connecting these two ideas, and give the impression that atheism rose to power in communism, and with the fall of the Berlin wall "the golden era of atheism" is over... That's the thesis of The Twilight of Atheism, but it is not a very neutral interpretation of history. --Merzul 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) ***I got it. That OR connection is not currently in the article, and I'll make sure it stays out. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-21 21:04Z
 * 16) **** Well, the current presentation although not explicitly making the connection, does give a similar impression. It might be all in my head... Anyway, since the formulation is neutral, this is just a minor quibble. --Merzul 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Finally, any improvement to the prose is always welcome, but I can't help with that. Alright, that's my little task and wish-list. --Merzul 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) * I'm basically done harassing, and I'm satisfied with the article. You can basically consider this done. But the article has changed quite drastically, I think it is time for SandyGeorgia to have a look at it again. (I wonder whether the brutal deletion of the quotations have lead to some loss of context, because in that case, the main text should be improved to reflect it. I think it was the right thing to remove the long quotations, which in some cases were quite polemical). I'm more-or-less happy. :) --Merzul 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break 4

 * Oppose I'm afraid I still think there is a fundamental POV problem with this article in that it starts from the POV that Atheism = Strong Atheism + Weak Atheism and does not make it remotely clear that the concept of "Weak Atheism" is highly controversial. People who define themselves as agnostics do so specifically in distinction to being "Atheists" and the idea that newborn babies are all "weak atheists" is also highly controversial (some people think that newborn babies have a direct perception of the divine, and there is actually quite strong empirical evidence that children are instinctive theists). In addiiton leading Atheists like Dawkins specifically do not use the term. Of course it cannot be denied that some atheists have sought to extend the definition of Atheism to cover "weak atheism" - just as some Christians use the term "implicit Christian" and some Muslims suggest assert that "every child is born a Muslim" . But the leading dictionaries and philosophical encycolpedias do not take this as the lead sense of the term. And no-one reading this article would realise that there was a problem. I don't think this is an insoluble issue, but I do think it needs to be solved NBeale 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) amended NBeale 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of your recent edits regarding "POV problems" have themselves been reverted as POV by at least 5 editors. As you well know, this has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page, and consensus has led to the current version. The article has never been this stable in recent history. Your disagreement with the inclusion of implicit atheism does not equate to a "controversy" among philosophers. You have continually attempted to portray this view as being a fringe neologism ("some atheists controversially..."), when in fact this view has been around since at least the 1700s, and has been discussed in standard philosophical encyclopedias (such as Routledge), and countless books on the subject. You are confusing "discussion of X" with "validation of X" - the article doesn't say "Atheism = X + Y", it says "Atheism is commonly defined as X, Y, Z, etc". Regarding Dawkins: lack of commentary from 1 person on a subject does not equate to controversy regarding the subject. If you want to make a suggestion, please do so at Talk:Atheism, and let other editors respond. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 13:24Z
 * Sorry, but I do not see where the problem is. Where exactly does the article "start from the POV..." etc? It seems to me to start from a very careful statement that atheism has many shades of meaning, and it carefully avoids taking a particular stance. The recent edits by NBeale, on the other hand, have tried to push the author's own POV in defiance of a well-constructed and balanced consensus. Gnusmas 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version does not push a POV. If you could find a reputable source to support the assertion that "Weak Atheism" is highly controversial, or that "Strong Atheism" is the most popular definition, then we could include such assertions.  However, we cannot presume from our personal experiences or independent definition surveys that this is the case.  The ambiguity and non-committal language of this article very carefully reflects the lack of objective study of the term "atheism", not any POV of the article's editors. johnpseudo 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are trying to balance a lot of POVs using a wide array of sources, it's a lot more difficult than NBeale implies here. I agree that most leading encyclopedias use either "explicit weak atheism" (Britannica) or "strong atheism" (Routledge) as their definitions. However, I don't see a major POV issue with first defining it broadly. Personally, I side with Rowe and Drange, I think atheism is justified belief based on overwhelming evidence that God cannot exist. Sure, logical positivists are a problem for this definition, but let's call them non-theist or "noncognitivists", and so on... The problem is that this is my opinion, and even if I'm in very good company, this is not the only view. We have explored all over the place, and I think Simon Blackburn sums up the situation very succinctly in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none." --Merzul 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not "disagree with then inclusion of implicit atheism". What I disagree with is the impression that this article gives that agnosticism is a form of atheism (eg "many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists") Now I cannot think of a single notable agnostic who would consider that the "qualify as a weak atheist". The most notable Agnostic philosopher I know of, Anthony Kenny, carefully states in his What I beleive "Why I am not an Atheist", Richard Dawkins clearly does not consider agnostics to be Atheists, nor to the polls cited in the article. And although the REP does mention this wider definition it then goes with the narrower one for the body of the article.  It is all very well to say that these points have been "reverted by 5 editors" but if we are trying to make an article that will be taken seriously by a wider audience than 20-somethings with little or no training in, or published work on, philosophy, then we have to be guided by intellectual rigour and not just the preferences of half a dozen editors.  Simon Blackburn is clever (though wrong-headed in my view) and is a deliberate controversialist.  But the point is that these are 2 definitions of Atheism, one of which "annexes" Agnosticism and one of which does not.  We should make this clear, and ideally make it clear that no-one except a subset of atheists agrees with the annexation. NBeale 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say agnosticism is a form of atheism. It says that under certain broad definitions of atheism, many agnostics may be categorized as such. Again, this is an issue for Talk:Atheism, not for the FAC discussion. Kenny asserts a more narrow definition of atheism; Dawkins's lack of comment is not evidence of anything; the polls also use a narrower definition. We don't use any definition, but instead list them all without preference. The article already makes it clear that one definition annexes agnostics, while one does not. There's no POV problems because the article doesn't assume a single definition, but explains them all. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 17:47Z
 * Well under the broad defintion of "Muslim" all infants may be categorised as such. Can you see the problem? BTW Dawkins does not "lack comment" he explicitly distingushes between Atheism and Agnosticism, as to pretty well all leading philosophers. But this article does not.  There are other problems of course but this is the most serious. NBeale 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no problem. The article already makes it clear that definitions overlap with others. Dawkins adheres to a narrower definition of atheism; your other unspecified "philosophers" do too, apparently. This article doesn't adhere to any of the definitions, but instead explains them all, and is thus neutral in that respect. Again, this is an issue for Talk:Atheism. I'll let others respond if they so desire, although I know of at least a couple editors who aren't willing to get into another debate with you regarding this. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 18:14Z


 * Just to clarify, there is a lot about this on the talk page and we are I think getting somewhere, but every major encyclopedia (Britannica, REP, SEP) makes it clear that the primary meaning of Atheism is distinct from Thesism and Agnosticism and this article doesn't. Until we fix this, making this article a FA will simply bring WikiPedia into disrepute. NBeale 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply cite philosophical encyclopedias when defining the article. As Dannyno has clearly stated on the talk page: "Philosophical dictionaries will concentrate on rejection because "absence" is not a philosophical position"."  You can't just leave out a definition on the grounds that a specialized dictionary doesn't cover definitions outside of its field. Even so, REP has a whole section on the absence definition, so please stop mischaracterizing them. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-27 12:05Z
 * We need to work on a reasonable compromise, but this POV issue can not ultimately block the FAC. I echo Brian's objection that you aren't doing justice to the wide range of opinions expressed in reliable sources. For example, the entire point of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "atheism and agnosticism" is that these concepts are highly related, and that many people who call themselves agnostics, e.g. Huxley and Ayer, do so because of "unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic". Look, if anything brings disrepute to Wikipedia, it is the citing of a source contra the main thesis of that source. The issue is more complicated, so let's work on a compromise... --Merzul 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break 5

 * Support Nicely done article. Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above M&amp;NCenarius 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The lead paragraph is critical, and this one is fine. But this one is absolutely not acceptable. Gnusmas 10:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Based on the talk page discussion, the lead section is stable; of course, the article still attracts random people wanting to redo everything for personal reasons. That 2nd version you link to was an undiscussed rewrite by NBeale, obviously poor in quality. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-28 10:17Z
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.