Category talk:Persecution by atheist states

Discussion

I have started discussion regarding the future of this and other, related, categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Persecution by (groups) categories. Anyone interested is more than welcome to discussion regarding how to resolve this matter. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

A discussion at WT:WikiProject Religion#Persecution by (groups) categories is considering related categories. However, this category exists so there should be known criteria for including an article in Category:Persecution by atheists. The category says "The main article for this category is Religious persecution" but that page has no content related to persecution by atheists.

The attempt to delete this category (19 January 2017) was closed as no consensus due to claims the category has some meaning. However, there needs to be a reason to add a category to an article. For example, why is this category at Dominic Tang? Tang was persecuted by a communist government that wanted to eliminate all opposition. The persecutors did not have an atheist faith or belief that led them to persecute Catholics. By contrast, the persecutors were simply doing what dictatorial goverments do—they try to eliminate opposition. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The close was "no consensus - with caveats", stating "I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay 'as-is'. Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy." and "as given, the current title is frankly original research." Given those caveats, repopulating this category added original research amid an outcome that, while not clear, of course, clearly indicated the status quo is problematic. There's no mandate for these articles to be included at this point. As such, it seems to me it should be depopulated pending discussion of a proper title/scope. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be so, but rushing at this stage is unlikely to be helpful. Let's see if anyone wants to explain the inclusion criteria. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the lengthy discussion about the category didn't produce a satisfactory inclusion criteria to justify keeping "as is", I don't think this thread would override that quasi-outcome, provisional though it may be. I'm not keen to jump into the fray and start removing cats, but I can't see any way providing an inclusion criteria for the as-is category wouldn't be contrary to the spirit of the close/discussion. I suppose I don't have too much to say about it, and I've said as much in a few different locations just now, so I'll leave it there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The intent of this category seems to be analogous to religious persecution, though atheism isn't a religion, being only an absence of a belief in a god or gods. Whilst various atheists might independently believe any of various other things, none of those other things is a definition of atheism, and it is those other things (such as dictatorial governments) that historically have been sources of persecution of various groups. It appears that this category was probably originally created to make a point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The parent Category:Religious persecution includes items such as Persecution by Christians and Persecution of Christians. Presumably someone felt that symmetry demanded the same arrangement with "atheists" replacing "Christians". Once created, people then looked for articles that might (in their opinion) be included. What is needed is someone who has studied the scholarly literature—someone who could use suitable sourcing rather than original research from enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Officially atheist governments have often engaged in systematic persecution of religious organizations and religious individuals. I'm not seeing much evidence of academics or other experts claiming that atheist governments and organizations never persecute others on the basis of religious beliefs, If, however, a persecution is done by a totalitarian regime with what is widely reliably sourced as being an atheistic inclination, and the subjects of the persecution are those who do not share that inclination, then an argument could reasonably be made that the totalitarian regime was also an atheistic regime. A government of state atheism is one many individuals might reasonably think could be described as atheistic.--desmay (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Government officials with fashionable beards have often engaged in systematic persecution of religious organizations and religious individuals. I'm not seeing much evidence of academics or other experts claiming that fashionably bearded government officials never persecute others on the basis of religious beliefs. Category:Persecution by the fashionably bearded. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@desmay: "an argument could reasonably be made" is another way of saying original research. Wikipedia is not supposed to present arguments raised by its editors. Rhododendrites points out that lots of people have been persecuted by bearded rulers, yet we do not list those persecutions as being by bearded rulers because no reliable sources have noted a connection between beards and persecution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I think all of the categories with "persecution by..." should be eliminated. Including the one on atheism. This recommendation for elimination includes Category:Persecution by Hindus, Category:Persecution by Muslims, Category:Persecution by Buddhists, Category:Persecution by Christians. Apparently there are no Category:Persecution by Jews or Category:Persecution by Sihks. All of these categories should eliminated because 1) they all present simplifications of really complex situations as if being a Muslim or being a Hindu makes one act in a particular way, 2) they all seem to violate WP:CATDEF where there are no consistent sources defining persecutions by any particular group consistently or even blaming particular groups consistently by their teachings, 3) all of these categories seem to have an accusatory tone in which people will dump articles that suffer the same issues as the rest including accusations of POV pushing, that these categories were all created to make a point (per User:Jeffro77), and of course other definition issues. The other categories of "persecution of..." seem to be more neutral in that they work off of what groups have received instead of what groups give off acts of persecution. I will likely start discussion on those categories and propose deletion for them too. What do you guys think?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This category has to go

Every state in the world whose constitution does not proclaim an official religion is typically an "atheist state". A prime example of such an "atheist state" is the United States of America. In so many words, even the title of this category is problematic. The category should be amended to denote religious persecution in toto: Persecution of christians by pagans; of pagans by christians; of muslims by christians; of christians by atheists; of atheists by muslims; atheists by christians; jews by christians; and so on. We have all kinds! The current, specific categorization is a minefield for inserting original work, promoting ideology, and advocacy of personal beliefs. Let's merge it with either "Category: Religious persecution" or with "Category: Religious persecution by communists". -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There was an exhaustive discussion at WP:CFD on this already. Let's not re-play it. Re "Every state in the world whose constitution does not proclaim an official religion is typically an "atheist state""; says who? It could be taken that silence implies consent. Or it could equally be taken to mean that their position is to have no position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not aware of the past, "exhaustive" discussion. A link to it would be most helpful, if you have it.

My notation of "atheist states" is meant to underline the need for consistency. The absence of official religion in the constitution and laws of, for example, the United States either makes the US an "atheist state" or a "religion-less" state. Whatever choice we make, we must apply the same criterion to the labeling of other nations that define themselves in the same manner, i.e. through an absence of official religion. I'm asking for consistency.

To briefly address the point you make: There have been actions undertaken and/or laws adopted by states that are without an official religion against specific religions, or belief systems that define themselves as religions. If, perchance, we keep this category alive, then we should include in it, articles about the Waco people, the Scientologists, or even the Muslims. Irrespective of what you or me, or we, believe about the veracity of claims about "persecution", that is what they are claiming. Again, I'm asking for consistency.-The Gnome (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

There should be a box thingy at the top of this page listing the deletion discussions: Jan 2017 and Jul 2017. The problem is that a core group want to use Wikipedia to spread the good word and let people know about the evils of atheism. Reasoned discussion is not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The other problem is that there is also a different core group that likes to think atheists would not / could not persecute any person / nation and that any deaths that occur are an unfortunate consequence of actions by the state as a state, not by governments inspired by motives associated with the advancement of atheism / suppression of religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I can understand from the above response, Laurel Lodged reveals that there are "core groups" editing Wikipedia who carry a certain kind of "thinking", no doubt deeply held, which these "groups" use in their work here. Would it serve any purpose to remind fellow editors that Wikipedia is not "a vehicle for propaganda" and that "[a]dvocacy" (of any kind of "thinking") is strictly prohibited? A rhetorical question by the looks of it. -The Gnome (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome's reminder, while well-intentioned no doubt, is unnecessary. My contribution was made to act as a balance to the previous comment. From observing , over many years, contributions to this and similar pages, it is quite obvious that there are camps or core groups. There would be no need for constant reminders about NPOV were things otherwise. For my part, while I can argue with vigour on a point, I like to think that my contributions are helpful, logical, well-motivated and as neutral as it is possible for any person to be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You illustrate the problem well. Of course some atheists persecute people, as do some adherents of religion. However, for example, Stalin suppressed all opposition because he was that kind of guy, and he correctly saw that organized religion would be a strong focus of opposition so they got special treatment. However, reliable sources specializing in the history of the period do not write about Stalin's regime as persecution by atheists. That's because atheism had nothing to do with it—atheism was merely one of many tools used to promote Stalin. WP:OCEGRS states there should be no category unless a substantial and encyclopedic head article could be written on the topic of "persecution by atheist states". Such an article would have to be based on reliable sources for history, not sources from religious groups that have been affected by persecution. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Categorically agree. :-) Pun intended. -The Gnome (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)