Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Major problems with NOR continue

I have done yet another major gutting of this article on WP:NOR grounds. You can not just list various laws, etc. that you think are discriminatory ... you need to point to reliable sources that actually say that these specific laws, etc actually constitute discrimination against Atheists. Without such a citation, the entire paragraph is simply the opinion of a Wikipedia editor... ie Original research.

I also have removed the entire "scripture" section... same problem, but with the addition that you need to show that these pieces of scripture are directed specifically towards Atheists (and not generaly towards infidels and unbelievers). Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I support those edits, and further fixed the state constitution section back to the fixed version I had a long time back that the guy got blocked for blind reverting. I also removed other pointless sections. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also cutting the paragraph on "disapproval" of atheists in the US section. This paragraph was irrelevant, as disapproval is not the same as discrimination. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With all you experience at the NOR-Noticeboard, it apparently didn't occur to you that we could have kept the article as it was if we simply had renamed it to Situation of atheists. If you don't think this article has any substance at all, you should at least have started an afd where the issue could have been discussed appropriately. This way anyone who thinks that the material should be kept (because we could rename the article or there are more sources that actually speak of discrimination) risks getting into an edit war with you. I am not going to do it, because I would prefer to split up the article anyway, and the material is still preserved in the edit history. I only wish that the same righteous attitude would be displayed against most other persecution of XY articles from the Template:Religious persecution, because those articles have the same issues. The reason why I haven't found the time to clean them up is that I prefer to keep the material, and I almost always merge it to another article and rewrite it, which takes a lot more time than just to delete the material. But I think I have a very good reason for my approach: I mean, there are those editors who appear to care particularly about the issues of 'their' minority group. Often, they could be described as POV-Pushers, because the articles they write aren't actually written from the required NPOV. I have cleaned up at least one article that was far worse than this one; the only mistake that User:AzureFury made here was to get himself banned - because now he can neither attempt to rewrite the material so that it would not be justified to delete, nor obstruct the discussion the usual way. To bad that I am not going to find out what strategy he would have preferred. If it was the first one, well, than we just lost a good editor.

I think what I want to say is: You are not solving the problem by deleting the material. wp:NPOV is a two-sided blade: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Articles that are not written from a neutral point of view are not acceptable, of course, but it is also not acceptable to exclude significant views. That there is an issue surrounding the "fee for leaving the church" in Germany, e.g. was sourced to an article from Spiegel Online in case you haven't noticed. And obviously atheists regarded the fee as discriminating, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the highest court in Germany with the issue. (And they still considered it discriminating, b.t.w, although the court decided otherwise.)

What happens now, if, striving to enforce wp:NPOV and other policies, editors overreact and remove a significant view completely, which is important to a certain minority group. People from that minority group can develop two different attitudes in their approach to Wikipedia:

1) That Wikipedia made an error in removing their point of view completely and that they should try to recreate the material - which, most likely, will only result in a continuation of the issue.

2) That Wikipedia doesn't live up to its own standards, and that it actually doesn't want to include the sum of all human knowledge or what other mission statements there might be. The knowledge about the issues they personally care most about is excluded. In short, they are going to think that Wikipedia sucks.

We can avoid to disappoint a lot of people if we take the time to rewrite and reorganize the material on those significant minority viewpoints. I would hope that this is your intention, too. Zara1709 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article says "Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists." It does not say it need be official or encoded in law. Reporting on a categorical bias among voters against atheists would seemn to qualify for inclusion --JimWae (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim... I think that is questionable... I suppose the key would be to clearly demonstrate (through a reliable secondary source) that these voter statistics are considered a "categorical bias against atheists".

Zara... I agree that at least some of the material I cut might well be appropriate in an article with a different title and focus... I came here due to a complaint lodged at WP:NORN. My interest isn't with the topic, but with cleaning out WP:NOR violations. Thus, I am dealing with this article and the serious OR issues I have found in it. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jim. I also think it absurd that you require one in support of keeping this paragraph to find a source that explicitly states that disapproving of a type of person marrying your son or daughter - or just hating the type of person in general - constitutes a "categorical bias." It is self-evident. The paragraph should be restored.Pwhitwor (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why we need sources... you might think something is self-evident while I might not. Thankfully, what you or I think does not really matter when it comes to writing an article... In an article we have to rely on what reliable sources think and say. Actually, this may go beyond just the list of statistics... I think we may need a source for the definition of Discrimination that is being used (definitions of key words is one of those things that I feel should be sourced in the lead). Who says that "Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists"? Is this definition taken from a dictionary or some other reliable source? Or is it mearly the opinion of a group of editors? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely unreasonable to dismiss the demonstrated statistical bias as being without the involvement of discrimination. The definition of discrimination, straight from merriam webster (www.m-w.com):

(1) a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

(2) the quality or power of finely distinguishing

(3) a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>.

The paragraph obviously details studies that demonstrate a differential response with respect to atheists, categorically speaking. It does matter what can be considered reasonable or self-evident when writing an article: interpretation of sources cannot be limited to direct quotation. Without reasonable extension of sources into language, as the paragraph in question accomplishes without overextension, Wikipedia would degenerate into a quotebook. The paragraph should be put back up.Pwhitwor (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up my block is an ad hominen attack against my argument which has only been responded to with "all wikipedia articles are wrong," and "we know policy better than you and the community." Just where exactly is anything in the article called discrimination? It's relevant and we as editors are allowed to decide what is relevant. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up your block might be an ad hominem attack, but I don't know what mention of your block you mean. The response by the other editors including myself is indeed that you are wrong about Wikipedia policy. You say you are right and everyone else (involved here) is wrong. I suggest you reconsider that. dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll reconsider it when you address the fact that every article on discrimination agrees with my interpretation. In other words, I'll reconsider whether or not I'm right when you prove me wrong, as I have been asking from the beginning. Dismissing me and the growing number of objecting editors is not an option. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I object to your summary blanking[1]. I understand the point that the points listed need to be substantiated as constituting "discrimination against atheists", or at least as affecting the "situatino of atheists" in these respective societies. This is, however, perfectly straightforward in most cases.

• Germany: the very source cited is Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten, which are of course protesting the fee because it is directed against atheists.
• Sweden: the source cited is ostensibly a reaction to protests of atheists
• USA: that's probably the most ridiculous section to be removed under "NOR"
• etc.

These are clearly bona fide controversies involving discrimination of atheists, usually along with adherents of minor religions, in the various countries listed. The relative notability of each controversy may be discussed, but a summary blanking pretending that not even basic pertinence of the material to the article topic has been established is unfair. A little good grace on both sides would be in order here. Just gutting the article based on "I don't like it" or using "NOR" tongue-in-cheek as a lever doesn't seem very productive. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grace and good research need to combine. For example, that German source isn't protesting the fee because it's directed at atheists -- because it isn't. It's directed at anyone leaving one of the tax-collecting churches; and the complaint you cite says nothing about atheism whatsoever.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dab, have you looked at the edit history? More than one editor had worked on the article removing OR. The stuff that was removed was then restored, I reverted, another restoration of the deleted material and I reverted again because I feel that the restorations were against the consensus that was building up here. I was simply restoring the article to the state it was a few hours ago because I thought it needed discussion before readding material. dougweller (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, HAH. Wikipedia is not a vote. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. Verbal chat 10:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See the disagreeing editors. See WP:OR. I've quoted policy and cited precedent. What have you done? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you put that back in again against consensus, you will be blocked for disruption. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And you did, so you were. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And it was overturned, nice call. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, one or two dissenting editors have contradicted with a mass of editors who are experienced in the implementation of WP:NOR. The dissenting editor(s) state that other incorrectly cited articles prove their points (this forms a precedent in their mind and a twisted form of WP:CONSENSUS), but this is an obvious fallacy. Policies do have interpretations, and it has been WP:CONSENSUS that these individuals have been correctly interpreting policy, hence their positions, and it has been WP:CONSENSUS that much of this article was breakin WP:NOR. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be an effective refutation except that I am not just using other articles as an examples, I'm also citing policy. I'm saying that policy is consistently applied the way I'm interpretting it. Am I wrong? It is not just one or two articles as well, it is every discrimination article I bothered to look up. The deleting editors have not even been able to find one article on discrimination that supports their interpretation of policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I still contend that 1>if discrimination is a categorical bias against something, and 2>surveys exist which report a categorical bias against atheists, then 3>there is no need to find a source that says EACH particular example of a categorical bias is an example of discrimination, because 4> they are discrimination by definition. Nevertheless, not every bias against non-Christians should be focussed on when this article is about a more specific kind of discrimination --JimWae (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with jpgordon: The ibka.org clearly is good enough to state that "the International League of Non-religious and Atheists complained about the 50 Euro fee as unjustified" without any OR. The context clearly establishes this particular source as within the scope of this article, never mind that "atheism isn't mentioned" explicitly: this is an association representing atheists, and it can be used as a source voicing the opinion of (some, German) atheists. Whether the voice of ibka.org is notable enough to be mentioned here is an entirely different question, namely one of WP:NOTE, not of WP:NOR. I would ask you to please keep the two apart and avoid artificial claims of "OR" which only go to annoy people. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with jpgordon 100%. If an atheist organization condemns law X it does not mean that the law X discriminated against atheists. The atheist organization could have (and did) condemned the law on multiple other grounds. To say that law X is "discriminatory against atheists" just because it was condemned by atheist organization for OTHER reasons is "OR".--Hq3473 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have undone Jpgordon's block of Azurefury (referred to above) for the reasons enunciated here. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of any of Azurefury's actions, notably of any disruption he might indeed have caused, or as taking a position in this content dispute.  Sandstein  16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The article has been effectively stabified so far. This is good. However, we really DO need to start rebuilding it. Is anyone aware of some good resources that address the issue in comprehensive and thorough manner?--Hq3473 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something to take a look at: [2].--Hq3473 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Situation of atheists

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Move Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't spent any time on discussion whether this law/opinion/fact in that country constitutes discrimination or not. If you are concerned about original research, you have to take a close look at each section and see whether it is based on the sources given or not. Before we discuss whether XY constitutes discrimination, let's move the article. If you don't want to do this - start an afd. Zara1709 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose That title isn't descriptive so I don't think it is a good replacement. Verbal chat 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"The title isn't descriptive"? So some people from the "No original research" noticeboard come along and start deleting sections because they are allegedly original research. Well, if they are serious with their concerns, than they would have to take a close look at each section, see what the sources say, see what the section says, and see if the section summarizes the sources accordingly. If they think that whole concept of the article is original research, than they should start a discussion about it, and, if necessary suggest to rename the article or to delete the article. There certainly is a "Situation of atheists that needs to be described on Wikipedia. In Germany, for example, one has to pay up to 50 € when one wants to 'leave the Church.' And the source for this couldn't be any better - it is a decision of the highest German court concerning this fee. Zara1709 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the suggested title. Nor would it make the OR go away, as you'd then have to source it from sources that describe it as the situation of atheists. dougweller (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, IMHO Germany charging 50€ to leave a church no one forced you to join in the first place is not a "discrimination", it is a rather commonplace administrative fee. This should not be included without appropriate sources. Also people may choose to leave a variety of "non-atheism" reasons. for example they may have become deists, or simply decided to stop wasting money on church.-Hq3473 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you should propose an alternate title or start an afd. If you don't like Situation of atheists, what about Legal policies affecting atheists? Certainly it is not original research to describe a fee for leaving the church as a legal policy affecting atheists.Zara1709 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever a "situation of atheists" is. Is it a collective noun? Why do we have to propose something else? There is nothing wrong with the current title, it is the content that is disputed and changing the title isn't going to change that. Verbal chat 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"oppose" as Verbal said, the title is not descriptive: does it mean where they live? does it mean the "situation" that in certain societies (ie China, Vietnam) atheism is a requirement for high office? In addition, much of the material would still be original research whatever you call it. The current title is a good one, and there are lots of interesting things to say about this topic, (including the history of discrimination against atheists) that come from highly reliable sources. Editors here need to stop defending the original text and actually get out the books to write a really verifiable article about the subject. To start you off, here are some sources you could use on the subject.[3] [4][5][6][7][8] etc.--Slp1 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, why not discuss the Situation of atheists in China here? In some countries atheists perceive that they are discriminated against, in some countries they are discriminating other people. Why not take the same approach to the whole issue of discrimination and persecution? Better than having articles like Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Hindus and Persecution of Muslims that are put together from only one perspective. People see the splinter in the eye of the other, by not the girder in their own eye. (I can't actually quote this in English),Zara1709 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose moving of article to name that isn't encyclopedic in the slightest - why have an article on tht topic? DreamGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'm open to suggestions of a better name than "Discrimination against atheists", but "Situation of atheists" seems rather vague to me. Note that "discrimination" is not restricted to the legal definition, but simply means treating people by reasons other than individual merit. Other articles on similar issues include: Discrimination against the homeless and Islamophobia - I don't think people would say these should be renamed to "Situation of ...". We can't use a -phobia title, as words like "atheophobia" are neologisms. Mdwh (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perphas a title such as: "Atheists and religious bias"?... A title that is more along these lines (with some rewriting of the lead) would broaden the scope to include discussions of various laws and attitudes that are not specifically directed towards Atheists, but which do have an impact on Atheists (such as the German registration laws.) It would also help to resolve the objections that sources need a direct reference to "Discrimination". Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh. The current title is just fine, and well-sourced information about discrimination targeting atheists should be easy enough to find. I don't quite understand why this is so difficult; for example, one should easily be able to find a reliable source criticizing the "in god we trust" on US money as discrimination against those who don't trust, not to mention those who don't believe at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... it was just a suggestion. My interest in this article has been with eliminating OR... as that has been done, I will bow out and leave it to those who know the sources to figure out the best way to rebuild or restructure the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Irrespective of other concerns, the title 'situation of .....' is quite meaningless. Situation of the Brooklyn Bridge I can understand .... but atheists ....???

weak oppose -- I appreciate the idea, but I think a more general article scope would just encourage people to heap up irrelevant trivia pulled off the web. "discrimination of atheists" is general enough to allow mention of people leaving church in Germany being required to pay a fee for no good reason, etc. What this talkpage needs is a good faith approach to overly-general or tongue-in-cheek "OR" claims (see above). NOR is different from NOTE, and a source may still be rejected on grounds of NOTE while fully granting that no OR is involved. That's a matter of good judgement. Is ibka.org notable as a source? I don't know. It may not be in an article with worldwide scope such as this one, it may be at religion in Germany, etc. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AzureFury has a point,, you know

Incredibly, I am still writing something on this talk page:

1) Please check this page again to see whether there was a consensus to shrink the article like this; As far as I see it there only was a consensus that there are issues with this article (The vast majority of editors has indeed decided this version broke WP:NPOV and WP:NOR); but there was no consensus on what the best way to deal with these issues is.

2)Even if you think that most of the material that was formerly included in this article should be deleted: If you are aware of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion you know that alternatives to deletion should be considered first. Of course, this is not an afd, but anyway, we should discuss alternatives first. A rename was one suggestion, the other suggestion was to split the article and merge in into the various articles on Freedom or Religion by country.

3)The rename proposal failed, but the split proposal wasn't actually discussed. I think it would only be fair (and wp:civil) to discuss merging a section somewhere else first, before deleting that section. But anyway, since there isn't a proper afd, who cares? From the editors participating in this discussion apparently only AzureFury would care enough about it, and if he continues like this he will actually get himself banned; but I don't care; I wanted to split the article anyway, and since there isn't a proper afd, I can just take the material from the old revision of it and merge it where I think it fits; I have actually already done that, check: Freedom of religion in the United States, Freedom of religion in Germany and Robert I. Sherman.

There are only two problems with that. Instead of one stupid discussion concerning one article, this could lead to several stupid discussion concerning several articles. And the more time I spend on stupid discussions the less time I have for writing articles, and from a certain point on that simply isn't fun any more. The other problem here is the deletionist attidute of some people. If you don't allow articles on controversial topics to grow (and, if necessary because there is a problem with the concept of the article: transplant them somewhere else), there will never be an encyclopaedic coverage of that topic. Enough said. AzureFury, please stop reverting, I will make sure that the material is kept in other articles. If other editors still think that I didn't solve the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issue after merging and rewriting, I guess we have to discuss the issues there, then. Zara1709 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Four editors have objected to these deletions: Me, Zara, Jomasecu, and Alastair Haines. The deletions do not have an "overwhelming majority" of support. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal too. It's unclear to me that sources are required to specifically label them as "discrimination". As JimWae says above, discrimination is not just about the legal definition of the term. It is not OR to use the dictionary definition of words. Is it being disputed whether these things count as discrimination? Which bits do editors have a problem with? This should be discussed before blanket removal of entire sections - perhaps sources not be found for the bits that some have issue with. Presumably there must be some sources criticising these things as affecting atheists adversely.

Also, if there is a problem with labelling it "discrimination", then a better solution would be to change the name of the article to something that's better. Any suggestions? Removing sourced information is not the answer.

I do not see a consensus, so I am reverting. Mdwh (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there certainly is no consensus for inclusion. Since much of this content has not been agreed upon as compliant with WP:OR, we should stick to only the better established material while these controversial inclusions are talked out. Adding material that is well-suspected of violating WP:OR is what should have had consensus before inclusion. Again, the double standard evident in AzureFury's request at Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 1#Under siege, in that we should extend a courtesy to the controversial inclusions that was not extended to us by those who first introduced them, comes to mind, and the entire action of restoring content that obviously lacks consensus seems to once again place the burden of evidence on the wrong party in this dispute. Usually the burden is placed on those making the affirmative statement (in this case, that source x and source y support description of this-or-that situation as anti-atheist discrimination), particularly on Wikipedia (since what counts is what is presented in the articles, and this material should reflect consensus). Seeing that there is nothing like consensus in favor of these affirmative statements, why not stick with those items that actually have consensus while the persuasive effort continues about the less-accepted content? It seems quite odd to create a mess by operating without (and against) consensus, and then insist that this new controversial content remain until "consensus" forms to exclude it. In a strange way, this approach seems designed to result only in the inclusion of the controversial content, as the smaller cadre of supporters will maintain the content essentially until consensus agrees with inclusion (which may never happen). All possible conditions involve keeping the content so long as that cadre remains active. This approach could allow all sorts of fringe, BLP violations, pure original research, nationalist junk, and the like that would not have consensus to persist indefinitely (since no consensus = keep), but this is of course not supposed to be the case. Content needs consensus to be included, not to be removed (though if it has consensus for inclusion, removal would be against consensus), or else all Hell breaks loose (figuratively speaking, of course). A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, a useful part of WP:V with regard to this situation is WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." We've yet to reach a consensus on the validity of the evidence brought forward in defense of the contested inclusions, so the material should not be included, for now. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, coming in as an uninvolved administrator. I have no opinion on the content of this article, but as I've been looking through the revert wars here, I am uncomfortable that people have been edit-warring to re-insert unsourced information. This is indeed a policy violation, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, unsourced information can be removed by any editor at any time. If there are further attempts to force unsourced information back into the article, such editors could be looking at sanctions.

My recommendation on how to proceed here, is that instead of making these large 35K reverts, to proceed more slowly. Only put in information that is well sourced, and as soon as any sourced information is challenged, take it to the talkpage and try to work things out. Other steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may also be helpful. Good luck, --Elonka 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Card Controversy

I've restored the Egyptian Card Controversy with two cites specifically labelling it as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears unwarranted. The sources need to be explicitly about discrimination against atheists, not just any discrimination. You provided:

• Egyptian court rules against giving Bahais the right to recognition on official IDs to support "Egyptian atheists cannot obtain birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates or passports. Without identity cards they have no access to medical treatment, cannot vote, cannot be employed, cannot do business with banks, not even to withdraw money from their own bank accounts." The source, however, does not make the said statement about "atheists," but rather about Bahais. Atheism is only brought up when the article mentions that the grand sheikh of al-Azhar called the Bahai faith "sacrilegious dogma" and a "deviant sect of atheists." Perhaps you are trying to connect atheism by virtue of the last remark, but this conclusion, not deriving from explicit statements in the source but rather from an analysis connecting various items in the source, violates our rules against original research. If you were planning on claiming that the connection is "obvious" on account of the item, do be aware that it is hardly so, as the original reasoning can be used to foster entirely different conclusions. Perhaps the grand sheikh's problem with the Bahais is that they are a "deviant" sect of atheists, rather than simply atheist? Or maybe we should focus on "Discrimination against sacrilegious dogma?" The problem of this sort of ambiguity is part of why we leave out original research and analysis in favor of material directly supported by the source.
• Hegazi case: Islam’s obsession with conversions to support the same sentence as above. I can see problems with your use of this source as well, but before all else the problem is one of WP:RS. AsiaNews.it openly attests to having a "missionary aspect" and similar religious goals: see AboutUs. The source is hardly a responsible choice for coverage of issues relating to religion in Islamic countries.

So, at this point, the restoration of the Egyptian card item appears to lack adequate justification, and so should be removed pending further discussion. If you do ever find sources that actually talk explicitly about the alleged discrimination, please do kindly bring the issue back to the table, thank you. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a U.S. government group, harshly criticized Egypt in May for "discrimination, intolerance and other human rights violations" affecting Coptic Christians, Bahais, Jews and other religious minorities." - from the first source. Please read more carefully. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where discrimination against atheists is directly mentioned in that short passage... A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheists are a religious minority in Egypt. The card controversy discriminates against religious minorities/all non-muslims. Atheists are not muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The novelties in these last claims are not from the source. Even if you found a source supporting these claims, putting the two sources together might violate WP:SYNTH. According to WP:OR, the sources must "directly support the information as it is presented." A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The first source says it discriminates against all non-muslims. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Passage please? Evidence is needed to support claims so that others may follow, so please help discussion harmony by providing exact passage. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll read for you. "The specification of religious affiliation serves only to allow discrimination – of non Muslims, that is." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That passage is not in the "first source," which in both the article and this section is the IHT article (reading top to bottom like normal people). That passage is from the non-RS second source. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an article by Samir Khalil Samir who is notable enough to have his own wiki article. A notable character thinks this is discrimination. Regardless of what you think about the paper, we can use it to quote this notable person. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a Catholic theologian writing for a missionary website. You may contend that his opinion is of note, in which case it would be quoted with clear attribution, but it is not established that this opinion is noteworthy. Has anyone outside of non-RS circles noted him? There is a matter of WP:UNDUE when our only coverage of the claimed discrimination comes from one opinion piece in a non-RS, with no mainstream narrative about the alleged discrimination. Even with this, he still does not explicitly discuss any phenomenon of discrimination against atheists. Remember, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: We need to come to an agreement whether this article should include "Discrimination of many religious groups at once, including atheists" or whether the article should focus more narrowly on instances of discrimination directed SPECIFICALLY at atheists. In my opinion the article should focus on the latter, otherwise the artcile will devolve into discussion of every single religious state that ever existed that promoted one religion against all others.--Hq3473 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. That's part of the problem with the article. Some of the discrimination mentioned (at times at least) is discrimination in favor of one particular religion, for instance. In other words, it is religious discrimination. I still stand by my belief that any discrimination listed has to be sourced by reliable sources that make it clear that there is discrimination against atheists. This would include, for instance, laws that specifically mentioned atheists or atheism. dougweller (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on this do we think that this article should include Egyptian laws that discriminates against EVERYONE who is not "Muslim, Christian or Jewish"?--Hq3473 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We should focus on laws that discriminate against atheists. This law discriminates against atheists. It is fairly weighted simply based on the fact that it has its own wiki article. The implication of discrimination is fair as we have notable figures calling it so. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The notable figures aren't calling it "discrimination against atheists." Remember, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." Our sources aren't presenting this material as "discrimination against atheists," and generally do not even directly mention the alleged phenomenon. The content policies need to be satisfied, not ignored, so this original research remains unacceptable. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable figures are calling it discrimination against a group that includes atheists. This is not synth to say that they are saying it discriminates against atheists. We can quote exactly who thinks this is discriminatory against who if need be. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

State constitutions

I've restored the state constitutions, they are all explicitly labeled as discrimination in this [9]. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rob Sherman

I've restored the Rob Sherman controversy with a cite specifically labelling as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've glanced through the sources, but I'm a bit confused about the place of the Sherman item in this article. Apparently, there was controversy over one anti-atheist statement made by George HW Bush, not only because of the statement itself but also because it is known only from one source, Rob Sherman. Is there some sort of discrimination involved? From my glance, it seems that only two of the sources you provided mention "discrimination," and the text of both is identical [10][11]. Setting aside the question of RS, let us look at the mention of "discrimination" in these articles. "On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against Atheists by any elected or appointed official of government" and "On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veterans' groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination." These aren't discussing the quote controversy, perhaps because the quote is not actually discrimination in any form. Honestly, if anything, we'd be better removing the bit about the alleged quote and focusing on the veterans' groups instead. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The entire page at positiveatheism.org was devoted to that quote by Bush. The letter was condemning that quote and demanding an apology. Are you really trying to say that positiveatheism is NOT calling this quote discriminatory? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis of the page may be interesting, but the alleged quote is not explicitly called discriminatory in that article, which does not seem RS anyway. We need direct support, remember? WP:OR? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither does the article. I need only show that a non-wikipedian source considers the material discriminatory to justify its inclusion the article. I've done so. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has to be reliable. The source actually has to directly describe the material as discriminatory, which is does not directly do of the alleged quote; if you think otherwise please provide the supporting passage. Perhaps more important, to "justify its inclusion" you need consensus, which you once again did not have in restoring the material. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed it has and that position is that George Bush is a bigot." There's your accusation of discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an accusation calling Bush a bigot. What of the alleged "discrimination?" A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? No. No, I'm not even going to respond to that. I'm not playing this game. This is not a hunt for a specific string. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but perhaps telling, that you no longer wish to defend your position. Apparently, the needed support simply is not there. Original research was necessary to reach the desired conclusions. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The offered resolution read:

No person in public life may be free to impugn the patriotism of any minority group because of that group's opinion in respect to religion. President George Bush is herewith censured for his public expression of August 27, 1987, at which time he stated: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The resolution specifically censures President Bush for making those comments. This could not be any more clear unless you want to add that discrimination and the quote have to be in the same sentence or something. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The passage appears to regard impugnation. What about the alleged discrimination? Note that I not saying that this page said nothing of worth about discrimination. Rather, the focus upon the Sherman comment does not appear justified and would be UNDUE anyway, given that the alleged quote is known only from one source. I think it would be better if we focused upon the veterans' groups instead, since discrimination is explicitly tied to that issue. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The section gives it due weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a controversial quote that does not itself entail any sort of discrimination, or at least RS do not directly call it discriminating against atheists. I'm a bit confused by your insistence; how would a quite possibly imaginary opinion statement be discriminatory anyway, not being a law or order or anything like that? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a controversial quote that has had significant press coverage, thus justifying the weight. We can quote American Atheists regarding whether or not the quote is discriminatory if need be. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of press coverage does not justify the weight given to it in the article. I don't believe it belongs in the article at all. The article should be about discrimination against atheists, not about anti-atheistic sentiments. dougweller (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If this quote had "significant press coverage", then source it. If the remarks were made at a press conference, the odds would be good it would be reported, if noteworthy. Robertsherman.com and the atheist blogosphere aren't qualified RS at wikipedia. I did find this cite by Michael Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil, p 233), "The belief that one's faith is the only true religion too often leads to a disturbing level of intolerance, and this intolerance includes the assumption that nonbelievers cannot be as moral as believers...The most famous pronouncement along those lines came during a news conference on August 27, 1987, by Vice President George Bush, who was making a sop at Chicago's O'Hare Airport on the 1988 presidential campaign trail. After he explained that 'faith in God is important to me,' a reporter inquired, 'surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?' Bush replied, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.'" A wag might note that "Most famous pronouncement" is damning with feint praise considering how hard one has to look to find reliable sources making note of it, but at least this is a RS. The article may use it, or others like it, but not the selfpublished sources. There is no justification for ignoring the RS policy in this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We are quoting Rob Sherman, which is why I used his website. You can't claim that he doesn't say what is described in the article. He claims that the other journalists chose not to report it. Also, what notability policy are you using doug? Of course press coverage proves notability. And we have a source, biased or not, calling it discrimination. You may disagree, but on Wikipedia, we cover both sides of the dispute. If someone thinks this is discriminatory, we include it. I suggest you take a look at WP:PRESERVE. Add more, rather than delete. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Here are 3 cites, biased or not, proving significant press coverage. They are all from page 1 of google. [12], [13], [14] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

I've restored the Qur'an section of Scripture. I've added two cites verifying the claims made in the article from Apostasy in islam. If this is debatable, let's put up an RfC and see if calling for the execution of atheists is worthy of a mention in this article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The restored section has all the same problems of its last incarnation. Again, it uses unreliable polemic websites (answering-islam.org & Dhimmi Watch), though the unacceptability of introducing such sources was already brought up last round. Aside from that, no RS provided describing these rules on "apostasy" in relation to the alleged phenomenon of "discrimination against atheists." Just the same original research.

The recently restored material is nearly identical with its previous rejected form. Really, as before, gain consensus before placing the material back into the article. Doing otherwise, as you have just done, is just more tiresome and disruptive edit warring without regard for consensus. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I added sources from Apostasy in Islam. I've nearly quoted the material from that article and used their same sources. What is your issue with the material being here? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, other stuff exists. You've already tried that fallacious argument before, so it isn't like you don't know better. Apparently that article is using unreliable sources. This means we should too at this article? Anyway, regardless of the material at that article, this article is not supposed to be about "Apostasy in Islam," it is supposed to be about "discrimination against atheists," and hence we must use reliable sources directly discussing the alleged discrimination. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right, you do not define policy. Shall we put up an RfC and see what people think? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't define policy. The policies are defined on their respective pages. Just as your attempt to point out some other article using these non-RS sources to justify using them here was unoriginal, so was my reference to the "other stuff exists" trope unoriginal. In the end, the problem remains: non-RS sources being used for the article, violating WP:RS. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard you. I don't agree. If you wish to pursue this further, put up an RfC. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As you still haven't gained consensus, which is required for adding or restoring material, I don't have anything to worry about. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need your permission to edit the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At this time, you are technically free to disruptively reinsert contested material as much as you want. The material still lacks consensus for inclusion. Per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." On the disputed items, there is still no consensus on the validity of the evidence presented, so your most recent restoration, like the previous ones, showed disregard for the consensus-based policies favored by the Wikipedia community.

As for the specific dispute of this section, it is still not clear why the non-RS should be tolerated for even a moment at this article or any other article. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Which source specifically is not reliable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, answering-islam.org & Dhimmi Watch are unreliable polemic websites. If this claimed discrimination is such a real, legitimate phenomenon, why don't actual RS (reputable scholarly publications, &c) actually attest to it? Moreover, it is quite off-topic to plug Apostasy in Islam into this article simply because some editor, instead of RS, believes it is relevant to the alleged phenomenon of "discrimination against atheist." So we have the same OR and RS issues we had last time you inserted this same exact disputed material. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard you above, which is why I added sources to the section from another article verifying the claims. You have not mentioned those here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Same issue here as in Egyptian ID section. Islam punishes ANYONE leaving Islam, not just atheists. Why should this be included here?--Hq3473 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you right now. If there is some lesson for you to be learn from this dispute, it is that many editors don't consider this original research as "obvious" as you might pretend it is. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is typical of the problem. Discrimination against anyone who doesn't believe in X is just that, it is only incidentally and not specifically discrimination against atheist. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proven the material satisfies all wiki policies. You have methodically gone through every deletionist argument, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and now after each of those policies has been satisfied, you revert on the grounds that you don't like the material that I've added? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the material is clearly worthy of inclusion and pertinent to the article. I would definitely favor its inclusion, and would suggest that any request for its deletion be paired with supporting sources demonstrating its supposed invalidity, if any such exist. Zorodius (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, these are not well sourced claims. I'm going to template the section to see if it coaxes better sources, and look for suitable sources myself. It is of no help to building the article here to furnish more sources like these. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's cute that we have one editor complaining about material added without consensus and then another deleting material without even an explanation on the talk page. I've reverted for the reasons I've explained. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touch a word in this section. I added a template to encourage editors to bring it up to speed. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC

For those coming in, the dispute is over this section:[15]. It is being deleted on the grounds that calling for the execution of atheists is not discrimination, or at least, to call it discrimination is original research. Personally, I can not think of a more uncontroversial claim. WP:OR allows primary sources to be used as long as the material cited is verifiable by "reasonable, educated" person. I can't think of any reasonable person who would disagree that killing atheists, as perscribed by this interpretation of the Qur'an, is discrimination. If nothing else, WP:COMMON comes in to play here as no one is going to bother to argue that the Qur'an advocates killing and then also prove it is discriminatory. They are the same thing. So the sources listed are implicitly calling it discriminatory.

It is also being deleted on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced. In response to the complaint of sources, I added two more from Apostasy in Islam which makes the exact same claims: "{{cite web + - + |url=http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/Mawdudi/index.htm - + |title=THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW - + |accessdate=2006-03-23 - + |author=ABUL ALA MAWDUDI - + |work=Answering Islam}}"

and

"Encyclopedia of the Quran, Apostasy". These have not been addressed.

Another issue is that apostasy, depending on one's interpretation, may or may not refer specifically to atheists. If it does not, we would be including something that is not specifically discriminatory against atheists. I do not think this is unreasonable as atheists are a minority in most parts of the world, and to include only material that specifically targets atheists would make the article poorly weighted such that western countries (specifically the US) are the only ones mentioned, and from the perspective of the article's readers, atheists have it easy in the Middle-East and other places. That would be shameful systemic bias. There is no policy violated by including this material, so why be biased when we don't have to be? Does calling for the execution of apostates deserve a mention? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:This is a deceptive RFC. The issue under dispute is whether allowances must be made to permit selfpublished and other poorly sourced claims to be used in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion blog, forum or message board. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)--initially the RFC seemed to confuse the issue because it was situated after comments about unsuitable sources. I see that this was simply due to the missing section break. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - apostasy means rejecting one's previous religion, either for another or for no religion. Apostates may not be atheists, and atheists may not be apostates. So this scripture-based linking of "discrimination against atheists" with "apostasy in islam" seems pretty awkward and not terribly helpful. Of course a section on Islamic countries' treatment of atheists and apostates (exploring any differences in treatment that might exist) would be quite appropriate. Detailed scriptural analysis of why that treatment exists can be left elsewhere in WP. Mention of execution should be here (especially if we can explore variable application of this across countries and over time), but much more detail is only really justified for exploring discrimination short of execution. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the Quran should not be used as evidence of discrimination against atheists. That kind of citing of a primary source violates the no original research policy. What you need is secondary sources which cite the Quran as the cause of actual cases of discrimination against atheists. This is like citing the Bible to prove there is discrimination against Iraqis because verses in it somewhere denounce Babylon--can't do it. If there are actual executions of atheists then cite those cases, not the Quran. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Discussing the scriptural rationale for the death penalty in such detail does seem rather unnecessary, given the state subject matter of the article. What this section should concentrate on is actual cases of execution of atheists in Muslim countries (and presumably, most atheists in Muslim countries are apostates). If, in practice, it doesn't happen, then it's only worth a brief mention, while, if it does, then that's far more important than the lengthy quotes from the Quran. So, mention the executions, with the appropriate citations, and then say that this the courts have justified this be referring to statements in the Quran (assuming they have, of course). I think this would make the article appear more balanced, without in any way getting away from the facts of the matter. Anaxial (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do that. I'm not going to delete the mention to scripture, but I will trim it, and focusing more on actual cases seems easy enough and fair enough. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While you look for actual cases, i am removing the questionable content per comments. It can be put back when we find sources saying that some country discriminated against atheist by using scripture as basis.--Hq3473 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. We had 5 editors previously disagreeing with the deletion of the section, and now 2 more saying that scripture deserves a mention. You want to talk about consensus? The section has it. I'm restoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus (everyone from RFC opposed naked inclusion, and a lot of people before that). So per WP:Burden it should not be added until you get the consensus(or untill you get specific cases with references), not the other way around.--Hq3473 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone? What? Read the previous post? "If, in practice, it doesn't happen, then it's only worth a brief mention." We know that in practice, it does happen. Regarding the originally opposed editors, their complaints were about sources, which I added. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote each one: "So this scripture-based linking of 'discrimination against atheists' with 'apostasy in islam' seems pretty awkward and not terribly helpful" and "the Quran should not be used as evidence of discrimination against atheists" and "Discussing the scriptural rationale for the death penalty in such detail does seem rather unnecessary". And links to random blogs on the internet are not reliable sources. Also, as far as Wikipedia is concerned WE DO NOT KNOW if it happens in practice until we have good sources saying so. I remove my objection for now. The relatively small Quaran quotations are fine. I would still like to see better sources.--Hq3473 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• In some sections this article has a problem with original research, in others it has a problem with NPOV. There are several policies in several countries that are considered by atheists to be discriminating against them. The German atheist's group webpage, where they express their view that the fee for leaving the church in Germany is discrimination, ought to be a reliable source for the fact that some atheists consider the fee for leaving the church in Germany as discrimination. Should this significant minority view be mentioned in the article Freedom of religion in Germany? - Yes. Does this justify to mention the controversy about the fee for leaving the church in Germany in an article Discrimination against atheists? - No. Would it justify to mention this in an article Situation of atheists or similar? - Probably, but we're not discussing that. The requirements of an article Discrimination against atheists or much higher than those of a discussion (with the various viewpoints) of the situation of atheists in a specific country. If you want to have an article Discrimination against atheists, your sources need to show that the majority of reliable sources on the topic would actually see the issue as discrimination against atheists. Currently the article doesn't even come close to that. Even if it would, though, the necessity to debate those different issues in one article would still be doubtful. Zara1709 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says that the majority of reliable sources has to consider the material discriminatory? If we outright called it discriminatory, then perhaps that would be the case, but we haven't done so here. The majority of the reliable sources are not atheist, so of course they won't consider it discriminatory against atheists. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says this? Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says this! "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (...) The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Having an article about Discrimination against XY with content that is only considered by a minority to be discrimination is giving undue weight to the view of that minority. And, to point that out again: This is policy and not negotiable. And now you are saying: "The majority of the reliable sources are not atheist, so of course they won't consider it discriminatory against atheists." That attitude is unacceptable here. Significant minority views need to be included in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a forum for partisan views. If you care specifically about a minority view, you can contribute it to the project, but if you are not able to give a balanced discussion of your minority view, then you should either work on articles not related to it or leave the project. Zara1709 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, find the sources that say the material in question is not discriminatory against atheists. We'll count them up and write the article proportionally. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Qu'ran section. Obviously not applicable to only atheists -- apostasy is not just about atheism. "Atheism" as a self-identifiable group did not exist when the Qu'ran was written and trying to claim it made statements about atheists is not supported by any reliable scholarship on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the above editor (ScienceApologist). First, the section (as translated) is about apostates not atheists. Second, the 'death to all apostates' is an interpretation not a definitive statement that is accepted by all readers and interpreters of the Quran. It may be includable in an article on the Quran (I'm no Koranic expert) but it would be a stretch even in a 'discrimination against apostates' article without other reliable sources that state that the interpretation is generally held to be correct AND that this interpretation translates into actual discrimination. Just because the Quran says something, even if it does, does not mean that the discrimination exists. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

US section

I've restored the paragraph on social disapproval in the US section on the grounds that it does not label social disapproval as discrimination but instead gives background on the examples of discrimination that follow. This was one of the complaints about the article, that it was simply a long list. Social disapproval is certainly relevant to discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included a mention of Pete Stark, not to say it is discriminatory but to show an example of social disapproval. It is hard for atheists to get elected to office. There has only been one elected to congress in history, that's proportionately less than any other minority, as atheists make up around 10 percent of the US population. If that's not a sign of social disapproval, I don't know what is. When I wrote that sentence, I didn't bother referencing the claim that atheists are not getting elected due to social disapproval because I thought that it went without saying. Is this not a trivial claim? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As trivial as many of your claims, which is to say, it's original research again. If it goes without saying, either we shouldn't say it, or we should find someone else who has. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was such a trivial claim, finding sources saying so should be very easy. "As a result, there has only been" etc is simply an editors interpretation of things, not covered by sources. Dendlai (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:CITE is being used as an excuse, and is not being cited as a legitimate concern. A legitimate concern would be that having one atheist congressmen in history is not evidence of social disapproval. I will look for a source saying that atheists are not likely to be elected to government offices, and that should remedy the WP:OR concerns. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cite that says that Pete Stark's coming out as an atheist is seen as "political suicide." Is this sufficient? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to take these concerns raised more seriously. CITE isn't an empty excuse. It's a prerequisite before adding any claim to the wikipedia. It's a requirement. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How silly of me to add undisputable (and undisputed) material. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you only added non-disputed and undisputable material... Would anyone dispute it? :) Dendlai (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you the chance to dispute it then, is one atheist congressmen in history evidence of social disapproval of atheists? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether I think so or not is irrelevant. That there now is one source saying that, more or less, is what matters. Dendlai (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So it is undisputed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Not sure I understand what you are saying. Until you found a reliable source, it was very disputable. Now there is a reliable source quoted I accept it being in the article. I would prefer having more than one source though, since it is a fairly big claim. Dendlai (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying no one has disagreed or even proposed that someone could possibly disagree with the statement that "atheists are not popular in the US". That was what was implied by the trivial claim that one atheist congressman in history was evidence of social disapproval. I don't see that "atheists are not popular in the US" is a big claim at all. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Negative categorical bias"

Could someone explain to me the ontogeny of this phrase as a definition of discrimination? It doesn't get a lot of search hits, and lots of them are repeats; and most of them seem to refer to prejudice, not to discrimination. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I'll figure out a way to rephrase this. Do we actually need the sentence at all? We have discrimination, which says Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.. I just struck the first sentence and slightly modified the second; that should suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

This section is being deleted on the grounds that it is not specifically discriminatory against atheists. Few laws are as atheists are a minority in most parts of the world. Dendlai, you specifically complained in one of your edit summaries that 70% of the article was devoted to the US. Deleting this section only makes that worse. The fact that an atheist (not me) originally added the section on Sweden is evidence (appealing to common sense, not wiki policy) that atheists consider this an issue. The current citation of the section establishes its factual accuracy and the source calling it discrimination establishes that it discriminates against a group that includes atheists. I believe the section should remain. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the section claims discriminatory laws; it mentions some sermons. Either additional sources are needed (and should be expanded on), or this doesn't add up. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AzureFury, editors aren't allowed to "make an argument" with sources. They aren't allowed to source claims to self-published websites. And you can't abandon the strict policies about reliably sourcing every claim to bring more balance where it may be needed. The quality of sourcing in the article overall is abysmal, including this section. I've crossed out the part of the claim which is unsourced OR there: "In October 2006, the Swedish Humanists filed a complaint to the ombudsmen of parliament[5] and The Chancellor of Justice[6] about sermons arranged by the parliament because, the Humanists claimed, it was contrary to secularization, and thus discriminating against non-Christians, including atheists. Both the ombudsmen and the chancellor concluded that they had no jurisdiction over the issue and chose not to comment further on the case. Thus, these sermons will continue. And further, the complaint was against invitations sent by Parliament to deliver its session opening prayers, not sermons. If the invitations aren't specifically addressing atheism, we will need a reliable source who claims they have that same effect. Wikipedia's editors can't make that claim. Reliable sources must do it-and not self published sources nor websites thrown up by some non-noteworthy activist fringe group filled with anonymous submissions. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How is, "Both the ombudsmen and the chancellor concluded that they had no jurisdiction over the issue and chose not to comment further on the case. Thus, these sermons will continue," original research? You're not going to convince me that Wiki-policy is so strict that a cite saying that a law is discriminatory against all non-Christians cannot be used to say that that law is discriminatory against atheists. It is a matter of definition. Atheists are non-Christians. We are not machines, and our right to make decisions about articles is well established. Take a look at WP:COMMON. This sort of thing was precisely the reason that policy was written. We understand the factual accuracy of the claim is supported by the source. Why do you want to require that they specifically use the word "atheist"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"You're not going to convince me that ..." - there are a half dozen editors at least on the talk page who've tried to tell you have to pay close attention to what the source says: if the source "doesn't say it" you can't say it. This wasn't even a discriminatory law at issue in this section. Invitations were sent for leading an opening prayer; a secularist organization complained it violated laws keeping government strictly secular. That's all the source said. It didn't say what the results of the complaint were. It didn't say that there was any discriminatory policy about who the invitations could be sent to, Christian or otherwise. And neither delivering a sermon or a prayer is a discriminatory act in and of itself. The complaint alleged it violated secularism in national government, not discriminated against atheists. You're trying to weave arguments that atheists are subject to discrimination, but that's not why we're here. We're here to write an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia's article cannot be the first source making the claim. And while it isn't absolutely necessary the source use the exact word "atheist", it has to refer to them directly, yes, via some suitable synonym. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad Populum. Is saying that a law is discriminatory against a group that includes atheists not directly saying that a law is discriminatory against atheists? Is it a false claim to say that said law is discriminatory against atheists? I really don't understand the motivation here. Are you worried about original research? Because it's not original research. It's focusing on a specific aspect of something a source said. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination in favour of one religion is not the same as discrimination against one specific belief, or lack thereof like atheism. The section I removed I did so because the claim made in it was specifically NOT supported by the source (discrimination against other religions means atheism isn't included, since atheism is no religion). That an atheist added it doesn't matter, really. Another atheist (me) removed it. :) That the article is US-centric is not an argument to add badly sourced/OR/Synthesis sections on other countries. Dendlai (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is debatable whether or not atheism deserves the term "religion". The cite isn't in english, so I'll have to take your word that it states the law is discriminatory against "other religions" rather than "non-Christians". AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say Christian vs non-Christian, or that there is any discriminatory law involved. It asked for a administrative or judicial type investigation to see if the invitations that were sent broke any existing laws. The whole section is just bad, bad editing. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify so there's no misunderstanding, the Sweden section used to have two parts, and what had a source talking about christians VS non-christians was the other one. I have doubts about keeping the remaining one in though, since it seems fairly dubious, and extrapolates a wee bit too much from the source, too. Dendlai (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It seems to me that atheist objection to christian traditions is exactly what the article should cover. I can't read the source for the deleted material, but the paragraph that remains seems to cover exactly this. What don't you like about it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that covering any claim as christian bias against ANYTHING non-christian and claiming it as anti-atheist is too big, by far. As for the paragraph I deleted (In the Sweden section), what I dislike about it is that the source mentions nothing about atheism, and explicitly states that it is about "Non-christian religions". I thoroughly dislike atheism being categorized as a religion, which would be needed for it to fit in here. Dendlai (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Semantics. You know they're including atheists in that group. You may not like to call atheism a "religion" but many people do. Including, it seems, the author of that source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, what is currently in the article, the complaint from the Swedish Humanist Association I have no big problem with, except the wording is a bit bad, since that is a complaint from an openly atheist organisation. Better sources would be desirable, since the sources used are simply the complaints filed, and the responses. Secondly, the author of the source I questioned, which is now not in the article, was simply the official protocol of Swedish Parliament, session 2006/07:15[16]. "Anf. 80 MIKAEL OSCARSSON (kd)" Dendlai (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Scripture

This section basically only contains references to explicitly and heavily anti-Islamic websites and writers. Like Jihadwatch.com and answering-islam.com. I deleted this once due to it being extremely biased. Is there a good reason (= a mainstream source) to say the things this entry says? Dendlai (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're raising the same issues that were raised before I added the book references. This: "Encyclopedia of the Quran, Apostasy" is a reference to a book. I don't understand the point you made in your edit summary. The section was originally disputed by an editor from Apostasy in Islam. So I thought adding references from that article to this one, citing the same claims, would be sufficient to satisfy WP:RS concerns. Infact, it did satisfy her and we were working on the section before this whole dispute began. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, when I clicked on the reference, I got linked to a wikipedia page, which should NOT happen, ever. If the reference is actually the book, the markup needs to be changed. If somebody clicks a ref to check the verifiabilty of a wikipedia page, they getting redirected to a wikipedia page is horrendesously bad. Furthermore, the other sources used for the entry are self-proclaimed, vey biased, anti-Islamic websites. That looks pretty ugly too. One of the referenes have an author simply named "Silas", for example. Like, If this is a big enough issue to be on this page, why aren't ANY reliable non-biased sources reporting it? Dendlai (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You expect a reliable, objective source to say "the Qur'an commands muslims to kill atheists"? Of course that's not going to happen. Just like you won't find a reliable source that says abortion is murder, but you can bet that point of view is represented on Wikipedia. It is the same here. We represent even biased points of view. With regards to the reference, you seem to be saying that the reference to the book is ok as long as it is inconvenient, learning more about the book...? What difference does it make if there is a Wikilink inside the reference? We are not referencing the Wikipage. We're referencing the book. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Just like you won't find a reliable source that says abortion is murder" "Abortion is murder"-recent news "Abortion is murder"-published books "Abortion is murder"-journals, books, potpourri of published academic scholarship. Yes, the same is expected here. This article isn't special. It needs to source claims properly, just like all the others. No references to a wikipage. No references to self published or one-issue polemical websites featuring anonymously authored opinions. That's the way it is, like it or not. Okay? Are we good now? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I cannot believe you tried to get away with that. The first one is a blog, the last two ARE NOT EVEN ARTICLES, they're searches into different google categories. There goes your assumption of good faith. If you want to catch me in a contradiction, you need to find a "reliable source" that specifically states, as fact, that abortion is murder. This is a contradiction since by definition, a source that states as fact that aborition is murder is not reliable. So good luck with that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite common for references to books to lead to their Wikipedia articles. We can't link to a book. Whatever else you want to say about this section, the reference is valid. From Template:Cite book: "Title of book. This is the only required parameter. Can be wikilinked only to an existing Wikipedia article. Do not use italics." Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We can add a wikilink to many fields in a reference yes. We cannot use a wikilink instead of a published reference, or a wikilink as a reference in place of a proper citation to the reference. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am refering specifically to the removal of the book Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an as a reference. The reference has been removed thrice with edit summaries involving referencing Wikipedia. It is not a reference to Wikipedia; it is a reference to a book with a wikilink. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Are you seriously debating whether or not atheists are concerned with the Qur'an's position on apostasy? FFS. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue raised, so nothing can be gained by changing the subject. Most all the disputes here are resolvable; not with revert wars, though, but with good sources. All content in wikipedia, all of it, must be published by reliable sources first. Self published sources can't be used. Questionable sources can't be used. And Primary sources (including reprints of quotes taken from them) can't be used to cite interpretations; a reliable secondary source must be cited for that interpretation. Editors have to find those reliable sources, use what they say - no more, no less - and properly cite those sources after using them. They can't go beyond the source, and they can't connect claims in original sources to any real life circumstances--they have to find sources that make such connections or said links can't go in the article. The claim "everybody knows" is seldom enough at wikipedia. You need good sources. The objections raised on the talk page point to significant problems with the use and quality of sources in the article. The solution is to seek out good quality sources. These are good resources to help with the search. Research resources; Finding relevant articles; Finding relevant books Professor marginalia (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't changing the subject, I was raising a new one. In any case, you could silence my complaints of violations of WP:COMMON by saying "someone doesn't know it" or "someone disagrees with it." Policy is a means to an end, not an end itself. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, a purpose I thought was served by adding such trivial claims. So once again I ponder the motivation behind deleting the trivial claims that are still undisputed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:RS. But you've heard and ignored this before. If the claims are trivial, they should be easy enough to source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Read my entire post before you respond, thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have, and I did (same as last time you implied otherwise), and you remain wrong. Tendentiously so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just listing random policies with vague accusations, perhaps you should address the policies I have cited and explained thoroughly and bring up specific issues that require improvement. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)In response to your comments, Slp1:

Ah, ok, I was assuming that "reliable" meant "objective". jihadwatch is a prominent organization that says what is said in the article. Same with answeringislam. atheist-community is a prominent atheist organization. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinions about whether material hosted at www.answering-islam.org, www.answeringislam.com or paper written by an anonymous poster at www.atheist-community.org [17] would be considered reliable sources based on WP criteria. Note that these are not the only questionable sources being used, just examples. I would get clarification from experienced editors in this area at the reliable sources noticeboard if I could be certain you would accept by the result. Would you agree to abide by their determination? I would. Let me know if so. --Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? What criteria specifically is failed? Is it not a prominent organization? You didn't say that an organization has to specify its author in order to be considered reliable. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB: items posted on the website of a "prominent organization" (as determined by you) does not equal reliable source as determined by WP. In fact, there is nothing about "prominent organizations" mentioned anywhere in any of the policies or guidelines of verifiability or reliable sources. I did mention the (official) documentation of prominent atheist organizations below. below, which may be the cause of the confusion. I was thinking about the clause in WP:V that self-published material may be acceptable in articles about themselves. Neither www.answering-islam.org nor www.answeringislam.com are prominent atheist organizations. You are also trying to source facts about Islam from polemic anti-Islam websites. Self-published resources can be acceptable as sources if they are by recognized experts in the field. But you are citing from an article from an Austin Texas atheist website, by anonymous person called "Staks" about whose qualifications we do not and cannot know a thing. My view is that for all of these reasons these are not reliable sources. Check the link I cited and see what you think. If you continue to disagree with my interpretation of policy, then in my view we should, as I said, ask for clarification at the reliable sources noticeboard. I ask again: will you agree to accept their opinions? --Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'll look for some better cites. I've deleted jihadwatch as a reference, for starters. atheist-community is used to show that the inquisition was discriminatory against atheists. That probably goes without saying but I'll find something else. answering-islam is used as a cite that some muslims think Apostates should be executed per the Qur'an and quoting Abul Ala Maududi. The first should be easy enough to cite, but it is difficult finding a specific quote on a specific verse. I'll see what I can do. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gutted the section. If people want to learn about this, they can read the article on Apostasy in Islam and make up their own minds. I've found two refs so far that explicitly link apostasy and atheism:[18] and two identical articles, not sure which was the first [19] and [20]. Is this enough to justify a link such that the scripture section does not contribute to the original research tag? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE might come in to play here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The source to the sentence remaining defines apostasy as a defection from Islam. Atheism itself isn't apostasy, and neither is "rejecting" Islam unless one is/was Muslim according to this source. The describes conversion from Islam, or renouncement of their faith or acceptance of Islam. But this isn't directly connected yet to the topic of this article, one would have to build an argument relating the two and we can't do that. We have to use sources that connect the two. Looking at your sources listed just above, the first is a blog post-it can't be used. The second is somewhat challenging to use because it implies an interpretation of Quran that "non-belief in Islam" is the same as atheism, an unusual definition of atheism I think. Sharia law has been implemented in many places in the world - let's see if we can't find actual cases of atheist discrimination in practice rather than theory. This book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out looks promising--at least, I know it describes atheist apostates in particular. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Global Politician" is a blog? It lists its editors. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the definition of blog, but I thought it was something that anyone could post to, the point being that the authors were not selected.

I did read something earlier about a muslim getting all kinds of death threats after leaving Islam and writing about it. I don't know if that means anything or not though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a self-published piece by a blogger. Same difference, those are not RS at wikipedia. It's good to find sources, but remember the important thing is to stay focused on finding sources about atheist discrimination, not "leaving Islam". Professor marginalia (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This says "Those renouncing their faith for atheism or agnosticism are viewed in a similar way to those who adopt another faith." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This was written by a guy who wrote a book on Islam. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC piece writes that the death penalty for apostasy isn't in the Quran--that may need clearing up. In any event, the BBC pointed to this report which might have some content useful for this article. I haven't read it (130+ pages) so I don't know yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, how about renaming the section then? "Apostasy in Islam" ? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Where did the old conversation on this page go? Am I just missing a link to some archived version? It seems odd that all the numerous discussion about the consensus version of the article got deleted just in time for someone to now be reverting back to an old anti-consensus version and trying to claim that there is no consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete the discussion, if that's what you're accusing me of. It was archived by one of the deleting editors. We worked on the citation issue by adding more cites. If you would actually take a look at the talk page that you've completely ignored in your last two reverts, we've actually been discusing the issues and decided to retain the material while we work on the page. What is your justification for the reversions? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New restoration

I want to restore this:

Oath of Office and Testifying in Court

Main article: Oath of Office § United States

See also: United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office, Oath of enlistment, Oath of citizenship (United States), and No religious test clause

Although it has become tradition for US presidents to end their Presidential Oath with "so help me God", this is not required by the Constitution. However, the Vice President, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President are required to take an oath ending with "so help me God."

Similarly, witnesses sworn in at Court are typically asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?" Though again, non-theists are free to opt for Affirmation over swearing to God. Those who choose to affirm must state, "I do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

I believe the requirement that all military officers/government officials etc is discriminatory, but not the allowing of affirmation. I added the mention of affirmation after hearing a lot of people ask whether an atheist would be forced to swear to god while being sworn in to court. The section is specifically worded to say that affirmation is not discriminatory. Also, before someone says "you need a source to say that lots of people don't know this," let me say that we do not need to find a source for our reason for adding material. So let me ask the skeptic editors, what do I need to do to make this material acceptable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"I believe the requirement that all military officers/government officials etc is discriminatory, but not the allowing of affirmation". As you know, your belief about what is/isn't discriminatory and/or whether this is interesting information are not the point here. We don't collect indiscriminate facts here. For inclusion in a WP article about discrimination against atheists, you do need to find reliable sources, but not for the fact people don't know the information, but for the fact that some notable, reliable source thinks that it is discriminatory against atheists.--Slp1 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source won't call it discriminatory, but I will find a notable source that does. In any case, there has been no mention of the paragraph on affirmation, which, as I said before, was written to say that it is not discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, AF, but if "a reliable source won't call it discrimination" then neither can we. One of the core policies here is verifiability. And as to your second point, in an article about discriminatory acts against atheists, there is no place for extra paragraphs for interesting info that are "specifically worded to say that affirmation is not discriminatory." The fact is, that at present the whole section is Original Research: your opinions, (reasonable, interesting opinions, but your opinions nonetheless) sourced to websites which mention nothing about atheists, atheism or discrimination at all. --Slp1 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a non-reliable, notable source calling the material in question discrimination would be the use of primary sources, which is not original research. We would be saying, "these atheists think this is discriminatory," which would be true. With regards to your second point, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. By including material that is not discriminatory but is believed by many to be discriminatory, I would be moving the article away from the list format that was one of the complaints about this article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) What I'm reading now, along with some parts of Oath_of_Office#United_States suggests to me that a religious oath is not a requirement for federal office in the US. This seems to contradict it. I guess one specifically has to ask to be allowed to affirm. I'd like to see the inclusion of a mention of swearing witnesses in. I'll see what I can find for that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm afraid this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. All our sources have to be reliable. It has nothing to do with whether they are primary or secondary sources. The point you want to make could probably be attributed in the way you describe if the point is made by

• an independent secondary source such as a newspaper/book (preferred)
• a prominent atheist organization(s) in an official document,
• a notable, published expert on the topic

Note that all of these would likely be considered reliable sources based on verifiability guidelines. Non-reliable sources include blogs, websites, fora etc written by Joe public and/or by extremist and fringe sources, and these cannot be used. You have many times sourced your edits to such non-reliable websites, unfortunately. E.g. [21][22][23] (all currently still in the article)

By including material that is not discriminatory but is believed by many to be discriminatory, I would be moving the article away from the list format: Who says it is discriminatory? Who says it is not discriminatory? You seem to be inserting your own opinions and judgments in here, but this won't do. We needed sources, sources, sources. Trying to get away from a criticized list format is no reason to include unsourced, original research about a topic that is at best tangential to article subject.--Slp1 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me respond to your comments of the sources is the scripture section in the discussion of the scripture section.

It is true that in adding the mention of affirmation, I was using judgement. I identified that many people thought witnesses in courts in the US were forced to swear to god, and I sought to remedy that. I saw no harm in including it considering all the claims were true and I worded it to make clear that the paragraph was a refutation of discrimination and not an accusation. Was I wrong? Is something untrue? Is this common knowledge? Who is hurt by including this? We are giving people more, true, neutral knowledge. How can this ever be bad? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of wrong, bad or people getting hurt. It's just that this is not what this encyclopedia is for. If you want to write an article about your views about discrimination against atheists, and provide people with claims and facts and truth, that's great. There are lots of places you can post it on the web. If you want to contribute at Wikipedia, you have to follow the Wikipedia rules. When in Rome etc... Wikipedia is not a place for people to contribute their original research however true it is. It is a very boring place where we summarize the significant views from the best, most reliable sources we can find. Unfortunately, that doesn't include AzureFury's opinions, ideas of what is interesting, true or common knowledge. Yet. Maybe you will become a famous atheist whose opinions are published in secondary sources, and then we would be pleased to include them!! To be honest AF, and I say this with all the kindness in my heart, I am beginning to wonder if this is the place/article for you. You obviously have very strong opinions and convictions, and often editing about an article you feel very passionately about is difficult, because one is torn between what one feels to be right and the absolute obligations we have on Wikipedia to edit strictly according to policies and guidelines including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. Maybe its time to take a break and edit some articles that you feel less strongly about. You might find this Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers has some interesting advice. --Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but the last thing Wikipedia needs is apathy. You've cited policy to me, and I've cited it right back. You keep talking about policy. Once again, policy never says that relevance is established by sources. The material is factual and the only judgement call made was that people would want to know it. So if you want to talk about policy, show me the policy that says that relevance is established by sources? WP:NOTE only applies to the creation of articles, and not the content. How do you establish relevance without making a decision? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This question is not about notability, relevance or significance but the more fundamental question of verifiability: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I am challenging it (as have many others in the past). Find a "reliable, published source" mentioning that this is or is not discrimination against atheists to attribute it to, or it remains the original research that you have actually more or less admitted it to be. As such it cannot be included. --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Find a reliable source that says it is discriminatory or it is not discriminatory? I've made neither claim! I've simply said the truth and let the reader decide. If you're not disputing the relevance, then it should go in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about discrimination about atheists, remember? We only want and need information about that topic, not AF's interesting related facts. And as you should know, we are not interested the truth here, only things that are verifiable. Provide a source. To repeat myself, we do not want or need to include "unsourced, original research about a topic that is at best tangential to article subject". --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard you. The article is about discrimination. And people think this is discrimination. I'm saying it's relevant because of that. Let's be clear here, are you arguing about the claims made in the paragraph or about whether or not it can be included in this article? If the latter, my previous post was a request for a link to the policy that states that editors can not decide relevance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And people think this is discrimination. Great!! Prove it. Find some reliable sources that this has anything at all to do with discrimination against atheists and the whole thing is over in a flash. If you can prove that this is a "significant viewpoint that ha[s] been published by a reliable source" then it can be included. See WP:UNDUE for the WP policy that determines how we decide what you are calling "relevance". --Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It is good that we are moving away from "this cannot be included because it is not discrimination," and I appreciate your willingness to work with me on finding a solution. You say that WP:UNDUE is the answer to my question of policy. I did take a look at it. They give the example of the Flat Earth concept being mentioned in the article Earth. This makes me wonder if this policy is not applicable. Here is my reasoning: the mention of affirmation is not a point of view, it is a fact. A better analogy would be including something like the mass of the Earth into the Earth article. Would we need a majority of reliable sources debating the mass of the Earth to even talk about it? There are all sorts of obscure facts about the Earth we could, and probably do, include. And these accuracy of these facts are subject to scrutiny of their sources, but is their relevance? I am, afterall, only asking for a couple of sentences with which to inform people not from the US. As far as WP:WEIGHT goes, that's pretty minimal. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're feeling relieved, though to be honest I feel I am still trying to make the same point that I always have been. I don't know or care whether the information about oaths/affirmations is true or has anything to do with atheists and discrimination against them. I have zero interest in this subject, which is okay, because my personal views on this matter (and yours too) are irrelevant as far as WP is concerned.

To include any information you need to have a reliable source (first). If you actually look at the Earth article, you'll find that it is very well sourced from mainstream sources. The mass of the earth is mentioned (with citations), and yes, if there was any serious debate about it from reliable sources it would be mentioned (with citations). And while, yes, there are all sorts of obscure 'facts' that could be included, they are not. See here for something was deleted [24]. But at least this deleted addition had some link to the topic "Earth". To date, the sources you have provided have shown no sign that that the oath/affirmation issue has any connection whatsoever to discrimination against atheists. You say that it does, but you need to find some reliable sources that make this point. And with the best will in the world, I'm sure you understand if we gave every editor "a couple of sentences which with to inform people" about something, this would cease to be an encyclopedia and would become a free for all. Sorry --Slp1 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel, having to repeat yourself. Not one person has even commented on my citing WP:COMMON and instead chose to suggest I leave wikipedia and that I did not understand policy. In addition, you say that everything in the article has to be cited. All the citations for the claims made in the material in question are in the main article listed. Every source that mentions the topic says that people are allowed to affirm. This is a majority of the views required by WP:UNDUE. There is no implication that the material in question is discrimination so I do not need to find a source that says that the material in question is discrimination. It does not say that many atheists believe the material in question is discrimination so I do not need to find a source that says this. The only decision we as editors have to make is whether or not the encyclopedia is improved by adding the material to this article. I thought it was an improvement as affirmation is not common knowledge, so people coming to this article might be looking for that. I didn't know about affirmation until I read it on a talk page of an atheism related article on wikipedia. There is no reason for this information to be so inaccessible. So let me ask you, keeping in mind WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE, does this material improve the encyclopedia? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I still need to find citations for the affirmation, but I'm sure they're out there. Write responses as if we've found citation verifying the accuracy of the claim that affirmation is a possibility for atheists. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's one: [25]. Look for "Affirmation in lieu of oath." And another: [26], "courtroom procedure invites witnesses to affirm, rather

than swear..." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this, I'm seeing this same issue come up over and over, that some atheists are filing a lawsuit[27] to remove "under god" from the inaugural oath. That would establish that atheists see "under god" as offensive (at least in the presidential oath) and it wouldn't be a far topic leap to throw in a brief mention that witnesses in court also say it typically but are not required to. That seems like it would further remove any implication of discrimination and minimize any editorializing. Thoughts? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YES YES YES here it is! [28]. It's a book, it says "Unlike in popular fiction there is no need to say "so help me God." Is this a good enough cite? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another, "Some people maintain that they cannot take an oath because of their religious beliefs."[29] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that says an atheist thought affirmation was too religious, lol. [30] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting article by everyone's favorite, FoxNews: [31]. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not "discrimination". If there is no requirement they say it, then obviously, atheists don't have to say it. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My point from the very beginning has been that this is not common knowledge. I know have two cites saying that it is not common knowledge. It is our purpose to inform, which is why I want to include this material. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are you trying to say, "IF this oath was required, it would be discrimination(a), but it isn't required(b), yet on the other hand, the problem remains that many atheists think it is required(c) and therefore it is the case that this isn't a real discrimination(d) - only a commonly held mis-perception of discrimination(e)" then make sure you have a source/s that connect the a,b,c, and d together in the self-same manner and spirit. Editors can't do this. Secondary sources, qualified under policy WP:RS, can do so, and then you can cover it here. The Fox story doesn't say it, the Murray-O'Hair doesn't, the Law 101 cite doesn't. You asked in the thread's opening, "So let me ask the skeptic editors, what do I need to do to make this material acceptable". Here's the long and short of it, in order for the material to be acceptable, you need to find and cite a reliable published source that has said it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. We can't string sources together to make a novel point. WP:SYNT. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my idea. We create a new section, called " 'So help me god' in oaths." We mention that it is tradition that oaths, such as the witness' oath and inaugural oath typically end with "so help me God." We then go on to say that it is not required in either situation and then describe the lawsuit to remove "so help me God" from Obama's inaugural oath. The mention of the witness' oath goes in tangentially with no implication of discrimination. That is more than fair I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama isn't an atheist. He didn't claim discrimination here. Nobody else can reasonably claim he was discriminated against because he (sources say) specified that he wanted to say it. It's a separation of church and state lawsuit, not a discrimination lawsuit. This article is about discrimination against atheists. This is a nonstarter. It's not a question of "fairness". It's an issue of "scholarship". Professor marginalia (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh, that's the whole issue, the seperation between church and state. It's atheists suing over religion in government. It's just another court case, like the ones we already have. The lawsuit is by a guy named Michael Newdon, who sued earlier about his daughter being humiliated and ostracized because she wouldn't say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance in school. If nothing else, this is notable towards this topic as a continuation of Newdon's pattern of lawsuits over religion in government. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Zara1709 is pointing you in the right direction. Michael Newdow sued earlier but not for his daughter's discrimination. His daughter is a Christian--he had no standing to speak on her behalf, and that's why his suit was eventually tossed.[32] He expressed that he felt "humiliated and ostracized" by her saying the pledge, not that she did. Separation is not always, directly, a discrimination issue. Stop assuming. Start sourcing. And be mindful where the content belongs. This isn't a catch-all "atheist files a lawsuit" page. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your comments in "Vote," Professor marginalia:

I'm not saying that it is discrimination against Obama. I'm saying atheists feel strongly enough about it to sue about it. Discrimination against atheists is connected to the seperation of church and state, and hence would be a justified addition to the article. If you need that sourced, I'm sure I can find it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AF: You keep making these claims that 'people find this to be discrimination', 'atheists feel strongly about this', 'this is connected', etc, without any sources, but saying you can find them (which you generally don't manage to do). A piece of advice: this is not the way to write articles. We don't find sources to try to justify our views/opinion/things we know to be true. We find the reliable sources FIRST, examine what they say and then accurately summarize the material. --Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked me previously to show that many atheists did not know affirmation was a possibility. I did so. Not sure what sources I said I could find that I did not except that discrimination against atheists and the seperation of church and state are related. I haven't bothered to find that source yet because I haven't made that claim in the article yet. Right now, I can source every claim that I've wanted to make in the article. Your complaints are of implications. I've got a better idea though, and I'll implement that in a little bit. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to where I asked you to "show that many atheists did not know affirmation was a possibility." You won't be able to, because I never have. Instead, I have asked you repeatedly to find a reliable source " that the oath/affirmation issue has any connection whatsoever to discrimination against atheists.". To spell it out, something that mentions both oaths/affirmations and discrimination against atheists in the same reliable source. To date you have provided nothing of the sort. For an article on Discrimination against atheists this is what is required. Find something, or it cannot go it. --Slp1 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not discrimination and I have never labeled it so or suggested it is. I've found a way to add the material without implying it is discrimination. I found a source saying that Torcaso v. Watkins solidified the possibility of affirmation and included a brief mention. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

US courts upholding the rights of atheists

As Dbachmann commented somewhere at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans or that like: Material on cases in which courts have upholding the rights of atheists can't be used as examples for discrimination, since they are cases where courts have upheld the rights of atheists. We don't need a section on the state constitutions here, since in Torcaso v. Watkins the US supreme court ruled that they are not enforced. The topic is important enough to mentioned in a Wikipedia article, but this is not the correct one for it. Actually I had merged the material already into Freedom of religion in the United States, since I assumed that other editors would push the deletion of the US section through. AzuryFury, as far as I can tell, there isn't any other editor to back you up here. Couldn't you agree that the material on the Unites States should be merged into Freedom of religion in the United States? I don't think that you can warrant to include it in an article under the heading Discrimination against atheist. The Situation of Atheists in the United States is notable, but it should be dealt with either in Freedom of religion in the United States or Separation of church and state in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to settle for a link to the page where it's covered in place of the quotes from the state constitutions. As long as it's accessible. I think a brief mention of the existence of these quotes along with a mention of Torcaso v. Watkins would satisfy everybody. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was discussion another difficult issue the previous week, but since that one is not going to be resolved any time soon, let's get back to this one. Of course, the argument that 'cases in which courts have upholding the rights of atheists can't be used as examples for discrimination' also applies to the supreme court decisions.

Also it is not clear, whether the Boy scouts issue actually is discrimination. And more importantly, the Robert I. Sherman controversy is already described in detail in his article (I merged the material there, too, before it was restored here again.) I think that we can safely merge most of the material to the Freedom of religion in the United States article (or to the Robert I. Sherman article, respectively) and only keep a short, Wikipedia:Summary style description of the issues here. If there are no objections, I'll do that in a few days. Zara1709 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I object. And nothing is "clearly" discriminatory. We have sources calling the material here discriminatory. Also, you have a funny definition of "merge." Merging is where you take the material from one article and include it in another. Merging is not simply deleting an entire section without leaving even a summary. The Rob Sherman controversy is specifically an atheist issue. Of course this should be the place to cover it in detail, not Freedom of religion in the United States. You can include a link there to here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AzuryFury, you know that your position on this discussion page is difficult enough as it is. You should at least make the attempt to compromise. What I am suggesting here is a compromise: The material that in your opinion illustrates the discrimination against atheists is relevant for Wikipedia, but is has to be included in other articles. U.S. supreme court decisions concerning freedom of religion are best discussed in the article Freedom of Religion in the United States. Since you (apparently) want an article that discusses "discrimination against atheist" in general, which would imply a worldwide scope and a time line of at least 150 years, you must not devote 8 paragraphs to situation in the United States, since we can discuss that in detail in other articles. If your rather want an article Situation of atheists in the United States, we could talk about that, too, but it would be a different topic. If you don't understand my argument, I can allow some further discussion here - with one exception: The whole question whether George H. W. Bush actually said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.", belongs to the article Robert I. Sherman, since Sherman is the only original source for it. It would be appropriate to link "Robert I. Sherman" here, at Freedom of Religion in the United States and likely also George H. W. Bush, but the case is too particular to be mentioned with more than one sentence in any of these articles. Zara1709 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay closer attention to this page's history before you accuse me of being unwilling to compromise. I compromised on the state constitutions and I compromised on the scripture section. I compromised on numerous subsections of "Historical examples." Don't talk to me about compromise while you're deleting entire sections under the guise of a "merge." With regards to the Rob Sherman section, please post the policy that says "Rob Sherman is not worthy of the weight given to it at Discrimination against atheists," because that sure sounds to me like it's an opinion. Weight should be the last thing we consider, with neutrality coming first. In addition, Rob Sherman is an article about Rob Sherman. It is not an article about the controversial comment reported by Rob Sherman. The material in the section should be included there too, but that does not mean it should be deleted from this article given its proven relevance and significant press coverage. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am paying close attention to the revision history of this article; If I hadn't been paying attention to that, I couldn't have merged the material that was previously removed here to the articles where it belonged; I wasn't objecting to the critizism of this article, I was objecting to the way the issue was dealt with. Because all the material present here (as far as I see it) is notable, and our articles on Freedom of Religion in country XY can use that material. But taking the material from the old revisions and simply merging it there quietly is kind of sleazy and problematic, since I don't want the same thing to happen here that happened with Persecution of religion in ancient Rome and Decline of Hellenistic polytheism, where we now have a case of content forking since the participating editors went ahead with bold changes and didn't manage to sort it out in the discussion.

The version I am striving to here is a compromise. Again, the material is relevant for Wikipedia, but it has to be included in other articles, not this one. But instead of deleting it completely, we merge it into other articles and keep a summary here. We can even keep the name of the article for now, although I would like to rename it into Social acceptance of atheism or that like. If we then restore some other material from the revision history, like the Victorian Britain section which more clearly is discrimination of atheists than everything else discussed here, but which was removed nonetheless diff, we can actually have an encyclopaedia article, and not just a forum for atheists' claims about discrimination. (And, on the same grounds, I am probably going to propose Religious discrimination against Neopagans for deletion after we're finished with this article.) Zara1709 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sucks when editors implement massive changes without talking it through, doesn't it? You're saying, "we should delete it now and re-add it later." Why not delete it later and re-add it later? What's the rush to delete the material from the page? And what makes the article unencyclopedic to include material that is, by your admission, encyclopedic? You seem to dispute the claims that it's discrimination. That seems to me to be the exact same original research I was accused of by claiming that it is discrimination.

Oh, and I see we have an editor reverting without responding on the talk page. Generally, when you revert on the grounds of "per talk" that implies some sort of agreement has been reached on the talk page, Verbal. That is not the case here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not only the material itself, which makes an encyclopaedia article, it is also the way it is presented. If you are looking for the important U.S. supreme court decisions concerning Freedom of Religion, are you going to search for them in the article Discrimination against atheists or in the article Freedom of Religion in the United States? This doesn't mean that we mustn't mention those decisions here, but we don't need to discuss them with the same amount of detail that is needed in the article Freedom of Religion in the United States. The article that you intent is only useful for one kind of reader - an atheist who is looking for cases of discrimination that he has to be concerned about. And although this is a legitimate project - to inform people where there is discrimination against atheists in the world - it is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. These issues need to be mentioned on Wikipedia (they're notable), but we want to present them from a general perspective, not from the atheists perspective. I don't see any editorial reason to present the material on the U.S. supreme court cases here - and you haven't attempted to give such a reason. If you want to address only an audience of atheists, you are of course free to do so in any atheist web forum. But Wikipedia is not a forum, and therefore all these Persecution of X, Discrimination against Y articles are highly problematic. I personally would like to split them all up and merge their content somewhere else where it would belong, but since I don't have the capacities for that, we might as well keep this article. But then stuff like the U.S. supreme court decisions has to be merged into articles like Freedom of Religion in the United States, and this article has to be merely a summary of that material. If you can't accept such a compromise, then I guess you either need to find some other editors to support you, and that quite fast, or you are simply going to be outvoted, and that probably through edit warring. Zara1709 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, a "compromise" by definition is not the first proposition put forward. You suggest something, I reject it, and then you say I'm unwilling to compromise? What? You haven't offered a compromise yet. You say I haven't put forward a reason to include material on US Court Cases. You haven't put forward a reason to not include them other than you don't like articles of the form "Discrimination against X." If we accept the existence of an article entitled "Discrimination against atheists," then of course it's going to include court cases involving atheists. If you want to change the title, that's fine. But freedom of religion is a very wide topic, and atheists' specific situation deserves its own article. These court cases were risen by atheists. The court cases belong in an article about atheists. In any case, are we debating the court cases you deleted or the Rob Sherman controversy you deleted? Both are atheist specific issues. I don't see how you can argue that they deserve to be covered in more detail in a less specific article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having two sentences about Robert I. Sherman and that alleged Bush quote in this article certainly is a compromise, if compared with the possibility of not having this mentioned here at all. I went through a lot of effort writing a balanced account of the Robert I. Sherman controversy since I first noted the issue at the old article Persecutions by Christians were the material certainly was misplaced. Instead of simply deleting it, I took a closer look at the issue, came to the conclusion that it's notable on Wikipedia and merged it - first into Separation of Church and State in the United States, then here and now to Robert I. Sherman; what we actually should do now is write a singe sentence of the issue and link "Robert I. Sherman" in the George H. W. Bush article which, I suppose, could be rather difficult, since I have to assume that a lot of 'Christian' Republicans are watching that article. Anyway, I just wished that all those US editors (I don't know if AzureFury is one) would spent less effort on articles like Persecution of Christians or this one, and started to worked on Freedom of Religion in the United States, which really needs some improvement. Zara1709 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that having two sentences is a compromise from the original proposition of deleting policy-compliant material for a reason that was resolved by adding a source? No, you have no basis on which to delete the material entirely so that was never an option. We're starting with your proposition of two sentences compared to two paragraphs written neutrally and appropriately weighted based on media coverage. You keep saying that we should summarize it here and describe it in more detail in other places. I really can't see anything in the section that isn't notable. I'm willing to discuss trimming the section, but two sentences is far too few. If you're editting in good faith, discuss with me what specifically you think is excessive here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors edit warring without one comment on the talk page:

• A baby turkey (citation needed) X2
• Verbal

Note that deleting other's comments is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As predicted, Verbal committed vandalism in deleting my comments. Describing editor's actions is not a personal attack. I'll ask you to refrain from vandalism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors that the shorter, version produced by Zara is to be preferred, and have reverted to that version. I don't see any deletion of your talkpage comments, AF; what I see is that (yet again) you don't have consensus for your edits, and that you are edit warring against multiple editors to get your way. You don't own this article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Verbal deleted my comments before, so I'm asking him not to do so again. Here's what I see: editors voting and ignoring the talk page completely. Votes without any basis in policy is meaningless and a violation of policy. I've asked repeatedly for a discussion and you have refused. I do not need consensus to uphold policy and I will continue to do so.

In addition, do you realize what you're deleting? A baby turkey, with only an edit summary explanation, deleted 8 references in the state constitution section simply calling it "OR." Once again, the claims made in the article are trivially verifiable. The article stated that the state constitutions listed included religious requirements and indeed the state constitutions typically said things along the lines of "no one who denies the existence of a supreme being shall hold office in this state." How is it original research to call that a religious requirement? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's try again with discussion. As I noted above, I agree with Zara and apparently with the 3 other editors that the Rob Sherman incident is best presented as a very short summary, if it is included at all. Since there is no independent confirmation that Bush even said what Sherman claims he did, it seems to be a non-story as far as discrimination against atheists is concerned. A sentence or two at most is all that is required.

I think the State Constitution section should be deleted in its entirety. The entire section is [[WP:SYNT]: primary sources put together to make a point (which in fact is that there isn't discrimination in this area). Once again, we need independent reliable sources that say that someone thinks that this state constitution issue has anything to do with discrimination against atheists at all. Otherwise we are giving undue weight to AF's analysis and his/her opinion that this is relevant for this article.--Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slp1 et al, it is currently synthesis and original research and needs to be a concise overview if it is included at all. Verbal chat 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is good to see people finally participating in the discussion. Too bad it took the protection of the page for that to happen. I found the source that explained someone thought the state constitutions were discriminatory and it was deleted.Supreme Court of the United States Here are some other places that explicitly use the word "discrimination".[33][34][35][36][37][38] Keep in mind that in order for something to be WP:SYNTH, one must take two things from sources, A and B, and put them together to say something not in the sources, C. C is not described in the article. Religious tests are of course related to discrimination against atheists.

It is interesting that you are injecting your opinions into this article by deleting the Rob Sherman controversy that has received so much press coverage. Find a source that says it is a non-issue or it stays in, uneditted. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to produce some subheadings to try to clarify this discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

State Constitutions material

Thanks for producing some sources. Here are comments about them.

• [39] This is a court document; a primary source for a court case which the petitioner lost. It needs to be used with considerable caution, per policy. I know that one other editor disagreed with its reliability as a source[40] and I will be interested to hear the thoughts of others; Personally I am not convinced.
• Most of the others are unreliable sources: self-published sources webpages on polemic websites; there is no apparent editorial oversight, and there are no named editors that might be considered established experts on the subject per WP:SELFPUB.[41][42][43][44]
• [45] This one is a speech by one Heidi Bruggink, legal coordinator for the Appignani Humanist Legal Center of the American Humanist Society; she has been quoted by others so probably qualifies as a established expert.
• [46] This one is an opinion column from Free Inquiry and is written by Thomas W. Flynn. As such I believe that this is a reliable source for the opinion of Tom Flynn at the very least.

Summary: I think that the reliable sources here could source a paragraph such as the following; sourced to the Flynn and Bruggink articles."Seven state constitutions (Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) officially ban atheists from public office, and/or acting as a witness in court. However, these clauses are rarely enforced, as they violate the explicit separation of church and state in the American Constitution. In addition, in 1961, the Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision."

The business about the oath/affirmations currently in the article needs to be left out unless reliable, secondary sources can be found. It is currently original research, sourced to primary sources --Slp1 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about it is original? I found a source that said Torcaso v. Watkins assured atheists the right to affirm. That's exactly what the article says. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Which source would that be? Is is a reliable, secondary source? Does it have any mention about discrimination against atheists in it? If all of these have satisfactory answers, then, no it won't be original research. The sources currently in the article don't qualify: one is a primary source document that shows one can affirm, and never mentions atheists at all, and the other is the primary source petition made by a petitioner in a failed court case. Neither of these are reliable secondary sources. Do you have something else up your sleeve that meets the grade? --Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We mention Torcaso v. Watkins. Then we go on to describe its significance. This is not original research. And of course it's not going to call it discrimination. It's not discrimination. The article mentions it specifically to say it's not discrimination. What is your issue with this? What original research do you think is happening here? What is said in the article that is not said in the sources? What implication is there? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We mention Torcaso v. Watkins. Then we go on to describe its significance. This is not original research. Wrong, I'm afraid. Unless you have some reliable secondary sources to verify the point about oaths and affirmations and that it is or isn't discrimination against atheists (which you don't), it isn't verifiable and it automatically becomes original research. As I've said before, you are approaching writing this article from the wrong end: you should start by researching the reliable secondary sources and then summarize what they say instead of deciding the points you want to make and then trying to source it. --Slp1 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You're inventing policy. I need to source claims I make in the article. And I have done so. We know that state constitutions have been called discrimination. They go in. We know Torcaso v. Watkins negates them. It goes in. We know Torcaso v. Watkins assures the ability to affirm. That goes in. All Facts. All verifiable. All sourced. It's simple. If you prefer, I'll put up an RfC so we can get some more input from the community. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks against other editors. Try this analogy. I can easily source a sentence that tomatoes are generally red. It is a fact. It is sourced. It is verifiable. Does that make it a reasonable inclusion to this article? No, because no reliable source in the world has determined that the colour of tomatoes and discrimination about atheists are related topics. The individual facts may be verifiable, but that is not sufficient. Otherwise we get into original research and synthesis.--Slp1 (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, what personal attack have I made? If anything, you should consider WP:CIVIL before making such statements as "Do you have something else up your sleeve that meets the grade?" Consider this: a court case establishes that denying atheists fresh tomatoes is discrimination. Is it original research to include the fact that that court case overtly specified that the tomatoes had to be red? This is a better analogy. The information you're disputing is the significance of the Torcaso v. Watkins. Of course we should describe the result of that case. Do we need to put up an RfC on this? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "Stop inventing policy"? I apologize if you considered the up your sleeve reference insulting. It was not meant to be. It was instead intended as a light-hearted request for some reliable sources for your claims. Unfortunately, I am still asking. Let's start by being clear, however. I am talking about the oaths/affirmation issue. I believe that the sentences about the state constitutions that I proposed above are adequately sourced to the two sources I mentioned, and could go in the article. However, the sentences about oaths and affirmations remain original research unless you (or someone else) can produce one or more reliable sources that A. mentions the oaths/affirmation issue and B. mentions that this has anything to do with discrimation against atheists. To date you have produced two primary sources [47][48] and neither of these fit the bill for reasons explained above. If this is a notable, significant issue in the area of discrimation against atheists, it should be possible to find reliable secondary sources that make the point about oaths/affirmation.

I'm afraid I don't really grasp your tomato analogy and its connection to the situation, but I will try to answer it nevertheless: if you had a reliable source that a court had ruled about atheists and that the denial of fresh, red tomatoes to them is discrimination, then no, of course it isn't original research. But here, for the affirmation/oaths issue, there is so far no evidence that a court has ruled anything about the oaths/affirmation issue being discriminatory. If there is a reliable source out there that makes this point, great. I would welcome an end to this debate. But we need a reliable source as described above. And if you want to organize an RFC on this issue, please feel free. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say this again as simply as I can. The state constitutions are discriminatory. Torcaso v. Watkins over-rules them. We are justified to discuss both in the article because of their relationship. The primary sources you describe discuss Torcaso v. Watkins. The article does not claim the material in question is discrimination. Not sure why you're not getting this. This is cut and dry. I'll ask again, do we need to put up an RfC before you'll concede to a two sentence description of the impact of Torcaso v. Watkins? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, I agree that the information about the state constitutions and Torcaso v. Watkins can be included. To repeat, the issue is the sentence about affirmation/oaths. To repeat, the sentence you wish to include "thus concluding an oath, either for office or to be a witness, with "so help me God" is not required. Those who choose may affirm instead" is not verifiable from reliable sources. For the sentence concerned you have provided two (primary) sources

• [49] Making a argument for a court case that was lost, it mentions Torcaso vs Watkins once, but does not link it to affirmations/oaths issue, using it simply as a reference for an legal argument "It would also violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Article VI, which provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. VI; Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)."
• [50] doesn't mention Torcaso vs. Watkins at all, nor atheists/atheism, nor discrimination

I'll "concede" that a sentence or two can be included when you find some reliable sources that verify the edit you want to make, and show some linkage to discrimination against atheists, as I have said over and over again. I've run out of things to say on this topic. Find. Some. Reliable. Sources. --Slp1 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Welp, apparently we can't agree on whether or not a source that describes Torcaso v. Watkins can be used as a source for a description of Torcaso v. Watkins. I'm putting up an RfC. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you have provided describe the T vs W case. Only one of them even mentions it in passing, as a reference.--Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

For those coming in, the dispute over is over the last two sentences of the following paragraph:

Eight state constitutions in the US require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness. A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override the state requirements. Thus concluding an oath, either for office or to be a witness, with "so help me God" is not required. Those who choose may affirm instead.

The dispute is over whether it is "original research" to include the impact of Torcaso v. Watkins, specifically that it assured atheists did not have to pass a religious test in order to serve in the state or as a witness. The disputing editor thinks that because the source[51] does not mention discrimination that it is original research to include it in an article about discrimination. I think it is not original research to describe this hugely important court case. The disputing editor does not dispute the relevance of Torcaso v. Watkins, but for some reason disputes a short description of the results. Is it original research to describe the rights assured by this court case? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I love it. We apparently don't even agree on what this dispute is about. In my view, the issue is the unverifiability of two sentences sourced to primary documents. Please see this post of mine (immediately above the RFC) for the disputed sentence and my analysis of the sources provided.[52] In summary, the sentence is not verifiable from the sources provided. A completely new reference provided above [53] (this time a secondary source), mentions Torcaso vs Watkins but merely supports the notion that T vs W case declared unconstitutional the section of the Maryland State constitution that required a belief in God for holding public office. It says nothing about how T and W impacted the issue of affirmations and oaths in court etc. This impact of T and W on affirmations/oaths and "So Help Me God" etc may well be verifiable, but it currently isn't. --Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From the source, "The Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights, as well as statute and custom, require oaths for a variety of functions including serving as a witness, serving as a public official..."

At the bottom of the same paragraph, "Since the decision by US Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, holding that Maryland's constitutional oath of office, which included a declaration of belief in God, violated the establishment clause of the federal 1st Amendment, it has generally been understood that this article is also unconstitutional."

I apologize for not citing this source earlier. I didn't check the sources you brought up and only while making this RfC did I notice we weren't talking about the same sources. One of the deleting editors must've deleted it without saying anything. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology. I talked about the two sources you were citing in several different posts, even linking to them:[54][55][56], so it is somewhat incredible to me that you did not pick up the issue of the missing reference earlier. It really is very important to check what others write carefully. How can we move a conversation forward if this is not done? Okay. I have read the passages you quoted. Thank you for specifying the sections as I was looking at the material at the top of page 44, not the bottom. I haven't got time to think about this immediately, but this is closer to what is needed as a reliable source. I will make a proposal for sourced sentences shortly. In the meantime, perhaps you could sort out the reliable sources for the Sherman section as requested below.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a chance to think about it? I've modified the language a bit and included the source that was previously deleted. Is the section satisfactory? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have more or less completely reworked it. I think the main thrust of the information is there; just with much better sources than the ones previously given. Two points however; It is clear from what I read that the oaths/affirmation distinction was a very early one, made initially to accommodate Mennonites, Quakers etc. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with T and W at all, so I have moved this to the start of the section along with some info I found about the States that prohibit discrimination. I also deleted the Pierce thing as being WP:TRIVIA, and nothing to do with the topic at hand really.

If you will forgive a mild case of blowing my own trumpet, this is the sort of sourcing from mainstream, independent secondary sources that needs to happen throughout the article. It really isn't that hard; we just have to find the best sources and summarize what the sources they say. --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The section looks good now. Thanks for your help. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rob Sherman material

AzuryFury: It is interesting that you are injecting your opinions into this article by deleting the Rob Sherman controversy that has received so much press coverage. Find a source that says it is a non-issue or it stays in, uneditted.

You seem to misunderstand the criteria for inclusion here; I don't have to find a source saying it is a non-issue: it's hard to prove a negative, I'm sure you will agree. If you want to include the material in the depth you desire, the onus on you is to provide reliable secondary sources to show that this is a significant notable issue related to discrimination against atheists and convince the other editors here that the inclusion of the material is justified. One way you could do this would be to find mainstream independent sources about it: books, newspapers etc that actually mention it in the context of discrimination. You say that the incident got "so much press coverage". Great. Find the articles and let's see them and what they say. To date the paragraph you want to include is sourced to:

• an American Atheists booklet; unreliable source
• Exactly the same article, hosted on a different website; still an unreliable source
• brief mention of the alleged incident in the Tucson Weekly]; reliable source
• [57] and [58] both pages from Rob Sherman's website; reliable only for his opinion not for significance of the incident
• [59] and [60] blog postings by Kevin Drum; reliability questionable especially as he admits to getting the story wrong in his first post.
• Brief mention of the incident in The Science of Good and Evil, but nothing connecting it to discrimination against atheists; Reliable source.

Summary: there are very few independent, mainstream reliable sources about this incident, and fewer still that make any connection with discrimination against atheists. Maybe you can find the newspaper articles that you mention? At present, in my view, the incident justifies only the short mention proposed by Zara, though longer versions could go in the Sherman article, as she suggests. --Slp1 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I need a reliable source to prove that it is related to discrimination against atheists to avoid WP:OR, which the article has. The number of sources mentioning it, regardless of context, establishes how much WP:WEIGHT it deserves. I really haven't been looking hard for sources as this is a no-brainer. One of the sources describes it as one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society. You really think the "most famous quote" deserves just two sentences? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is an American Atheists' booklet an unreliable source? American Atheists is a prominent atheist organization is it not? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources mentioning the quote:[61][62][63][64][65][66] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources:[67][68][69][70] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. Weight is determined by the number and importance of references from mainstream reliable Sources. See WP:UNDUE. To date you have only produced two independent reliable sources, both with very mentions of this incident, one a local paper and one of which doesn't mention anything about discrimination against atheists at all. The brief references found to date justify only a very short mention of the Sherman incident.

The American Atheist article was written by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the early 1990s, founder and it seems one of the few members of American Atheists at that time (see the WP article about her, and at the Time article referenced for this point). I don't think there was much editorial oversight given to her writing, do you? I think when you read about her and her organization you will understand that the article can hardly be described as the kind of independent, third party reliable source required.--Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're using it to establish that someone besides me thinks it's discrimination against atheists and we surely have established that. Can you establish the existence of a view in opposition to the quote being discriminatory? WP:UNDUE assumes two points of view exist. You have never been able to show that there is any dispute that this is discriminatory, only that the quote many not have been stated, which is neutrally explained in the expanded version. Currently, we have more sources that believe it is real than believe it is not real. So the article should give more weight to the view that the quote is real. In addition, since we've accepted the relevance of social disapproval, and almost all of the sources I've listed link the quote to that, the quote trivially deserves significant weight, per WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove a negative. The ball is in your court. If you want to convince other editors here that the Rob Sherman mention should be longer and more detailed (given more weight) that it currently is, then it is up to you to show that it deserves this by finding multiple independent, mainstream reliable sources that see this incident as being related to discrimination against atheists. Per "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" To paraphrase Jimbo, if this is really is a significant viewpoint, you should find it easy to provide evidence that this is the case. You've provided a great list of links above, but from a cursory look many of them are not reliable sources at all, being blogs, webforums, unsigned webpages, WP mirrors etc. Perhaps you could go through them and weed out the ones that obviously aren't reliable sources, and the ones that don't mention discrimination against atheists in some way and I will try and look at the rest of them tomorrow. --Slp1 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, apparently the BBC is an unreliable source. We have no sources disputing that the material in question is discrimination and a prominent atheist organization, American Atheists, calling it discrimination. This is getting tiresome. I'm satisfying every condition you put forward and you still will not concede. What will it take before you admit that this deserves greater weight? You are contradicting reliable sources and providing none that support your position. What exactly do you have in your favor besides a vote? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source, National Secular Society, echoing the same story, calling it discrimination.[71] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another by The Varsity labeling it discrimination.[72] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"The God Delusion", one of the books I linked to explicitly calls it discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lantern includes it in a list of "injustices."[73] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article from City on a Hill Press that I linked earlier gives the Bush quote as an example after saying "Although this country was founded on the separation of church and state, many have been persecuted for trying to uphold that separation." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheist Alliance International calls the quote "Anti-atheist bigotry."[74] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got time to go through all this now, and I am disappointed that you haven't taken the time to remove the obviously unreliably sources as I requested. Hopefully you will soon. In the meantime, I will note that the BBC article you refer to is quite clearly an unreliable source [75]. The disclaimer at the bottom makes clear that the page was written by members of the public, and that the BBC takes no responsibility for the contents. And anyway the only mentions of discrimination are to say that atheists are not generally discriminated against! --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the disclaimer at the bottom. In any case, I was using that source as evidence of significance. You're an expert on the reliability of sources. I don't really get the qualifications. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only reliable sources are considered in the determination of significance and the weight due to a specific viewpoint. If it isn't an independent, reliable source that relates the issue to discrimination it isn't relevant to our discussion about this topic. The BBC "article" (and many of the others listed above) are therefore irrelevant, as I have tried to explain before. Please list the ones that are clearly reliable sources only, and remove the ones that aren't. If you are not sure about what reliable sources are, then read this WP:V and this WP:RS --Slp1 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My post starting from "Lol" and ending with "Anti-atheist bigotry" should be filled with reliable sources, defined as prominent organizations, labeling the material in question as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE implies consent, Turkey and Verbal. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise. You think two paragraphs is too much weight. Let's delete the skeptic paragraph. That cuts the weight in half and it's justified as all of our sources believe that the quote is real. We still link to Rob Sherman or some other place where the debate over the accuracy of the quote is covered in full. Thoughts? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Once we find out what the reliable sources are for this incident we will be in a much better determine what can be written from them and the weight due to it. Unfortunately, WP does not define webpages from "prominent organizations" as reliable sources as you have asserted above. I refer you again WP:V and WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source here. The nutshell version is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which in practice means scholarly journals, books and newspapers published by reputable publishers etc. Note that given that both Sherman and Bush are living, WP:BLP kicks in here (as has just occurred to me) so this requirement is very strict: "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". All in all, this means that the atheist websites are out, and that Sherman's website can't be used for any claim about Bush. See WP:SELFPUB. And not for determination of the weight due to this issue, of course. If you want to convince me and others about this issue, then please take the time go through the sources and list the ones below the ones you think meet WP's criteria for reliable sources. Think newspapers, magazines, journal articles, books. Thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Whew, ok, where to start. I am appalled by your bad faith direct contradiction with policy regarding the use of Rob Sherman's website to quote Rob Sherman. This is from V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Continue making statements like that and you will only convince me that the the policy compliant maintenance of this page will only succeed through attrition. In addition, I picked up this policy quote after other editors tried to remove well-sourced content from John Edwards: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Are you disputing the accuracy of the quote now? Because we already have sources that, by your admission, are reliable. We're using the atheist websites to determine that atheists think the quote is discriminatory, which WP:V allows. Your argument is becoming embarassingly thin. What will your argument turn to now? We can't use the Tucson Weekly as a source because it is published by the Tucson Weekly? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully what I wrote. I didn't say Sherman's website couldn't be used at all. I said that Sherman's website can't be used for claims about Bush. And it can't be. Read a little further in the policy you quoted...."Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ....it does not involve claims about third parties." Bush is a third party. Sherman's website can't be used for claims about Bush. Which is exactly what I said. You owe me an apology.

Your Edwards quote is great. It illustrates exactly what I (and many, many others) have been telling you. Prove that the allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well documented by listing the reliable published sources that mention it. That means finding "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Tucson weekly counts for the incident and the quote. The atheist websites don't count, because they are neither third-party nor do they have a reputation for fact-checking, though they are, as you suggest, reliable for the opinion that atheists think that the incident was discriminatory.

Nobody is disputing that the Rob Sherman incident should be included. Five editors were happy with Zara's short version, but you have disputed the weight attributed to it and would like your longer version included. As a result the ball is in your court. If there are lots of reliable sources, then per WP:UNDUE weight, it can have a larger weight attached to it. If there are only a few reliable sources (reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) then not so much. To date we have two only reliable sources. You said above that this incident "received so much press coverage". If that's true you should be able to cite all sorts of newspapers articles about the incident. Let's see them. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew you would say that. The article uses Rob Sherman's website to quote Rob Sherman. The article does not make any claim about Bush using Rob Sherman's website. It makes a claim about what Rob Sherman said about Bush. This is a clear distinction that I would expect a good faith editor to understand after having it explained. Regarding "reliable sources" commenting on the quote, we have two currently in the article. I have given many more. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is a book. The Varsity, The Lantern, and City on a Hill Press are all reputable newspapers. Not to mention you never bothered to comment on those two long lists I made earlier. Let me remind you that I offered to find you many reliable sources mentioning the quote earlier and you told me that what was needed were reliable sources calling the quote discriminatory. Regardless, we have multiple reliable sources mentioning the quote, multiple reliable sources for the interpretation that it is discriminatory, and one reliable source that specifically says the quote is important. This debate is over as far as I'm concerned. Here is the combined list that you did not comment on because you were too busy: [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet more sources, how many will it take before you concede? [84][85][86] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Actually the article doesn't cite from the Sherman website at all. To what are you referring?

Thank you for listing what you consider to be reliable sources articles on this matter. I will take a look at the list of links in your post tomorrow. Please note that I have never said that I was too busy to look at these links. Only that you should list only those you consider to be reliable sources (based on WP criteria rather than your own assessment). That way I don't have to spend my time looking at and commenting on sources that are obviously unreliable to us both. --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the original version is what included references to Rob Sherman's website. They were used to quote Rob Sherman. Infact, it was pretty much copy and pasted out of his website. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more to look at: [87][88][89] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay here goes.

• The original reason for this was to determine the weight the article should give to the Rob Sherman incident. Five editors preferred a shorter summary of the event, while AzureFury has argued for a more extended version. WP:UNDUE states that in "determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources".
• A secondary reason is to identify the highest quality reliable sources for this section about about several living people; Robert Sherman, George Bush and C. Boyden Gray: "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"

I have examined for reliability all the sources suggested in AF's last four posts, as well as the sources cited in AF's longer version of the Sherman section.[90], assessing each to see which are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the chart below the reliable sources are those that have Yes in both the second and third columns; ie are both third party and have a reputation for fact checking. I have been fairly liberal in my interpretations; I am sure that some would argue that Dawkins isn't a third party, for example, and that student newspapers don't really have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Caveat: though I have a fair amount of experience evaluating sources for reliability based on WP's criteria, I don't claim to be infallible. In case of dispute about a specific source, I suggest posting a question at the reliable sources noticeboard.

Source	Third Party	Rep. for fact checking etc	Comments
City on a Hill Press	Yes	Yes	Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly
Atheists for HR	No	No	Atheist website, with no sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident
Washington monthly blog	n/a	No	Blog posting by a random person; unreliable source
God Delusion	Yes?	Yes	Book by prominent atheist; reliable source; a brief mention of Sherman incident, but few details
Daily Evergreen	Yes	Yes	Student newspaper with an editor in chief named; reliable source; mentions Sherman incident briefly
Freedom from Religion foundation	No	No	no sign of editorial control; would be reliable only for opinion of atheists but merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or its discriminative nature.
War of the World	Yes	Yes	reliable source; merely quotes Bush, with no discussion of incident or discrimination.
Speech by Spike Tyson	No	No	Speech by an atheist; quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination.
Media Lens posting	Yes	Yes	Not sure about this one; a media activist website, but editors are journalists; in any case merely quotes Bush; no discussion of incident or discrimination.
TV.com bio of Bush	Yes	No	Unreliable source; any member of the public can edit the entry
Institute for Humanist Studies	No	?	opinion column on humanist e-zine, though an Editor named. Quotes Bush briefly; no discussion of incident
Atlas Society webpage	No	No	Self-published article on Objectivist website; brief mention of quote, no discussion of incident or discrimination
The Science of Good and Evil	Yes	Yes	Reliable source; quotes Bush; no mention of discrimination or larger discussion of the incident. Note: in AZ's longer version of this incident, this book was used to cite the section Jon Garth Murray and a the letter from C Boyden Gray; this doesn't appear justified, as Shermer doesn't mention either man.
Daily Illini website	Yes	Yes	Opinion column in student newspaper website. Brief mention of quote, no wider discussion of incident or discrimination. Note that opinion columns can only be used for the opinions of their authors, not for facts see [91]
Tucson Weekly	Yes	Yes	reliable source; quotes Bush; general discussion of US disapproval of atheists.
American Atheists	No	No	Article by a prominent atheist, published by an atheist group. No sign of editorial control. Reliable only for atheists' opinion of the incident
Rob Sherman's website	No	No	Reliable source only for Rob Sherman's opinions.
Washington Monthly blog	Yes	No	No sign that the blog is subject to any form of fact-checking, though hosted on Washington Monthly website. Somewhat confirmed as Drum admits to getting the story wrong.

Summary:

• There appear to be 8 reliable sources for this incident, of which three are student newspapers.
• None of reliable sources discuss the incident in any depth. For example, while all the reliable sources quote Bush as saying at least part of "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," none quote Bush saying the "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists" part. None mention Jon Garth Murray or the letter from C Boyden Gray. In fact the same is true for almost all the unreliable sources, too.
• Prominent atheists and atheist organizations are reliable sources for their opinions of this incident. It is clear that they consider this incident to be evidence of discrimination against them.

Conclusion:

• The incident is notable and significant and should be included.
• The notion that atheists talk about the incident and find it evidence of discrimination should be included.
• The incident has received only relatively brief mentions in "reliable, third party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and therefore per UNDUE, this article should include only a brief description of it.
• Since living people are involved, we must use the highest quality reliable sources, though of course this is always the case, really. Self-published sources cannot be used (with the caveat that Sherman's website could be used as a source for information about himself). AF's longer version used several unreliable sources as citations, including for information about living persons. Even Zara's shorter version (currently included in the article) includes some unreliable sources such as the Drum blogs.

As a result, I propose this as a replacement.

The disapproval of atheism is also illustrated by an alleged statement made by George H. W. Bush during his campaign for the presidency in 1987. When asked by atheistic journalist Robert Sherman about the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists, Bush is reported to have answered "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not record the exchange and no other journalist reported on it. The story has been taken up as evidence of discrimination by prominent atheists and atheist groups.

In my view it is reliably sourced and gives appropriate weight to the topic in an article about discrimination against atheists. I hope others will find it an appropriate middle ground: it is longer than Zara's version, but is shorter than AF's version. I hope others will take the time to comment on this proposal. --Slp1 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly the compromise I envisioned. Thank you so much for taking the time to fairly consider the sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Wikipedia is not a vote, but I would like to clearly see the support for each version of the article. This can help us stop misusing WP:consensus. As last edited by Zorodius As last edited by Almabot

• Almabot, I support the version as last edited by Almabot. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neither, but some preference for Almabot. I thoroughly disagree with the Sweden version of Almabot, since I don't think it represents its sources, or the truth, well at all. I prefer it because it doesn't interpret discrimination of non-main religion as discrimination of atheism as much, and it summarises the US state constitutions so as to not to make that part overlong. I also think it'd be OK to include a brief mention of Stark, due to the source found. I entirely agree with the removal of the "Scriptures" section. Sorry for my reply being overly long. Dendlai (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neither. The first sentence of Almabot should be removed; then it's OK. And we're not voting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neither, though the Almabot one is a much better start to work from. Even that version includes has possibly unreliable sources ([92]) and the obvious synthesis in the stringing together of primary sources to make a point, as has been pointed out by many editors. The Zorodius version is even worse in this regard.--Slp1 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neither is perfect, but Almabot can be a better starting point for further improvement.--Hq3473 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Zorodius, not surprisingly. Before we start making more 18,000+ character reversions, I've made a lot of comments on the talk page that have not been responded to. If we really do believe that wikipedia is not a vote, then some attempt should be made to convince the opposition to your POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Let's see. Here is a very incomplete list of some of the people who have responded to your comments, and disagreed with your arguments, along with just a few of their relevant posts. Dreamguy [93][94][95], Babyturkey [96],[97][98][99][100], JohnVandenburg [101][102],[103]; Hq3473 [104], me [105][106] , jpgordon [107] . Doug Weller [108], Blueboar [109][110][111], Pashtun Ismailiyya [112], Professor Marginalia [113][114][115][116][117], Dendlai [118][119]. Among these an arbitrator and an ex-arbitrator, administrators, and editors expert in OR and RS, all of whom might be expected to know a thing or two about policy, guidelines and how they apply at WP and at this article in particular. All have attempted to explain the strict policies and guidelines that must drive all edits, and why your preferred version of this article is not acceptable. If after rereading these posts you still have questions about why this is the case, please post a summary of your specific issues/questions below, and I (and others, perhaps) will try to answer them one final time. --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I see is my name at the end of several discussions about sections being deleted with no response. If you don't care enough to see these discussions through to the end, perhaps you should leave the editting to editors who do. I count 7 threads that I was the last one to say anything in. 6 if you count incoherent, off-topic posts as a response. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you have any specific questions about policies/guidelines that have not been explained to your satisfaction in the above discussions, then please list them in a new section below, and we can attempt to clarify them.--Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not an issue of me not understanding policy, and it never was. Here are comments that have not been responded to: [120], [121], [122], [123]. Also, Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists#Egyptian_Card_Controversy, Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists#State_constitutions, and Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists#Rob_Sherman. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you started editing, a substantial number of editors have pointed out that you don't understand policy. As for not responding to all you comments, that's not surprising as I suspect many think it would be a waste of time, sadly. dougweller (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neither as per Dendlai, Jpgordon, Slp1 but Almabot's version is a very good start and Zorodius's version is packed with non-compliant, unencyclopedic content. Being the "last one to speak" isn't how consensus is measured-and when an editor has shown he's deaf to the points raised, it becomes obvious to others participating in the discussion that repeating them five more times won't accomplish anything. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeating concerns that have been responded to is not participating in the discussion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See the latest thread above this, New restoration: 2000 words to sort out the same problem that's been explained over and over again. You've argued to add more original research back into the article through novel claims from primary source material. You're told you can't do that, to find RS that make the claims. You argue that "everybody knows", it's "common knowledge", it's of "importance to some readers", "it's true", "it's not hurting anybody", - you've offered many excuses, but no reliable sources. You also claimed, "Not one person has even commented on my citing WP:COMMON". COMMON isn't even a policy or guideline, and yet you're citing it as enough justification for you to make unsourced claims. But if you're waiting for a more direct comment, here it is: adding these unsourced and over-reaching claims damages the credibility of this article and the encyclopedia in general. It doesn't help, it hurts the encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMON has widespread consensus (per the tag on the top). WP:IGNORE is a policy. Your argument is that "by breaking policy, we harm the encyclopedia." That is the exact point of WP:IGNORE, that sometimes by following policy we are harming the encylopedia. I am saying that is the case here. The credibility of the encyclopedia is not harmed by adding undisputed material. Again, no one has disagreed with the material or proposed that an alternative view could exist. This point is moot though as far as "New Restoration" as the required sources have been found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"This point is moot though as far as 'New Restoration' as the required sources have been found." The sources have been found, then? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The credibility of the encyclopedia is not harmed by adding undisputed material. But the material has been vigorously disputed (and is being still) by multiple editors. I suspect you will find that you will have zero support for your contention that "Ignore all the rules" applies in this case: you haven't convinced a soul that your additions are actually improving the encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to complain about repeating yourself anymore. Let me say it again, editors are disputing whether or not the material in question complies with policy, not the material itself. So the only concern is for policy, without consideration for the improvement of the encyclopedia. The material is undisputed, no one has disagreed or suggested someone can disagree (third time I've written those exact words). We know that people will come here for this information. We know that the information is true. We know that the information is beneficial. We know that it should be included. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See above, "New restoration". You've asked to add Obama's "so help me God" episode to an article about discrimination against atheists, even though a) he wasn't asked or forced to say it, b) he's not an atheist, c) he didn't complain of discrimination, in fact he specifically requested that he be permitted to say it and he was given the go-ahead, and d) the lawsuit was lodged by atheists trying to forcibly restrain this particular Christian. Let me go on record as saying that I dispute your proposed material, it has not been sourced to pertain to this article's topic, it has no relevancy to this article absent some source alleging a connection to "discrimination against atheism", and padding this article with it would be detriment to both the article and the encyclopedia. In closing, we do not know it should be included. So source it. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond in the section. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neither per Professor marginalia et al. Verbal chat 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1 week protection

I've been asked on my talk page to take a look at this article. What I'm seeing now, principally, is an edit war over extensive content sections without any discussion. I'm protecting the page for a week to allow such discussion. If the editwarring continues after the block expires, I'll be considering an indefinite protection until consensus is found, or blocks of individual edit-warriors.  Sandstein  07:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is sad when one has to ask for discussion. Welp, I'm waiting for the responses in the section above, and I'm not expecting any. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not actually asked for a discussion. The arguments are present there, in the discussions above, but you haven't actually tried to refute them: It is not clear whether Bush actually said that. The quote (or simple the way the debate around it developed) could probably be used to illustrate a 'disapproval of atheism in the US-American society. But there is a difference between disapproval and discrimination. Atheists are legally equal to everyone else in the United States, which is illustrated by the court cases. Even if Bush senior doesn't know that atheists are US-American citizen, too, he (and no one else, for that matter) simply couldn't exclude atheists from holding a public office, from voting or that like, because the U.S. constitution prevents that. Nobody is forcing atheists to sit in the back of the bus! This article (but not only this article) is a mockery of those people that were (or are) actually being discriminated against. Zara1709 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you need some difs of me asking for you to discuss these changes with me before you implement them? Why exactly did you bother asking if anyone objected if you were going to implement the changes regardless? If you feel that I've overlooked one of your points, please repeat it so I can respond. Your opinion about the situation of atheists and whether or not the quote by Bush is discrimination is just that, your opinion. It is original research to even consider it when writing this article. There are actually two viewpoints to consider as to whether or not the quote is real. So far, 100% of the sources we have say the quote is real. Pretty clear how the article should be weighted. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Alright, looks like the US section and its subsections are in good shape. Do editors still consider every other section to include original research? Inquisition, Sweden, Egypt, etc. ? A simple yes or no will do, no rants please. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the same problems are present. The sections really shouldn't be there at all at this time. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. I haven't looked at every single section, but there are still very significant problems with original research and the use of (self-published) unreliable sources, including all the sections you mention. I would add that parts of the US section are still problematic. I was going to suggest that we slowly go through each section in turn, giving people two to three days to produce appropriate reliable sources to support it, and if these don't appear, delete it.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay looks like we are starting with the inquisition section. I have made a new section below. --Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a cite for "In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheism."? Isn't that a summary of the statistics in the paragraph? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I don't want to argue about this. Such a trivial statement produced a reliable source on page 1 of Google. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a page number for this reference? The only thing that I can see mentioning disapproval in that book is "In other polls, atheists have received the highest disapproval rating of all identifiable social groups as possible future spouses of one's children". p. 5. [124] Obviously, this is not an appropriate citation for a very global statement about widespread disapproval since it refers only to who you would like to marry your kids. Perhaps you were thinking of another page? Thanks for clarifying this.--Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Inquisition

Lead off statement about the current paragraph. The citation given [125] is not a reliable source as the article is an anonymous poster on a website. This paragraph needs to be sourced to reliable sources or deleted. --Slp1 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The inquisition at least seems like a pretty obvious thing to include. If we can find reliable sources to say that atheists were executed, would that satisfy OR concerns? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll need reliable source(s) asserting that it constitutes discrimination against atheists. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Killing atheists is sufficient for a mention in this article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AF, it would be very helpful if you could alter your commenting strategy. This kind of confrontational approach just puts people's back up, and is unlikely to help you get your way in the long or short term. Just a piece of advice. As it happens, I tend to agree with you here. If you can find a reliable source (book, newspaper, journal) that says that atheists were persecuted in medieval times etc then in my view that would fine. I note that many (all?) of the articles about discrimination against xxxxians, actually redirect to persecution of xxxxians articles. Not sure why we are dealing with the much more subjective issue of "discrimination with atheists" but anyway.

Note that you are going to have to do some very careful research to make sure any addition on this subject is accurate and representative: the term atheist had a very different meaning at the time, and the claim that someone was an atheist was used as an excuse for silencing people or persecuting conversos. See these for examples.[126][127] --Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am becoming more and more convinced that anything said on this subject needs to be very carefully and cautiously written. See this highly reliable source that suggests that the term is not really appropriate before the end of the 17th century, and that it was very loosely and more used as an insult before then.[128]--Slp1 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not really concerned with Turkey's opinion of me or the direction of this article. I've been googling the Inquisition for the last half hour or so. Mostly what I'm finding are jews and apostates being tortured/executed, but not atheists, as there were hardly any atheists in existence at the time. I'm seeing a few people, mentioned in History of atheism, that give positive statements of disbelief in god and get gruesomely executed. It seems to me that mostly atheism was used as an excuse to execute people, more than atheists were actually executed. I'm thinking the section should be rewritten, with a brief mention of the prominent atheists who were executed, a link to History of atheism, and then a sentence or two explaining that atheists were rare and atheism was used as an excuse. Thoughts? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh also, I can't source the claim at this point that atheism is used as an excuse. I was wondering if something you were looking at could be used to source that. It seems pretty obvious to me, so it must be said somewhere. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach and will respond in more detail tomorrow. But I stroooooongly suggest you strike your comments about Turkey. His/her views about this article are just as valid as yours, and you are not exactly talking from a moral highground as far as edit-warring is concerned. Please strike it and let's try to work this out with some civility --Slp1 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am talking from the moral highground as each of my reverts has been accompanied by a comment on the talk page. He can't make the same claim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much high ground in repeatedly insisting, on the talk page, that your original interpretation of a source is "obvious." You often restore sections nearly identical to their previous forms, without any of the problems resolved (one example: Talk:Discrimination against atheists#Apostasy in Islam), so my original objections still apply. I might repeat myself, but how would repeating myself after each revert improve my position? It doesn't, and neither does repetition make your arguments convincing or somehow create the consensus for inclusion that the material lacks. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me two difs of myself saying the exact same thing. In any case, you didn't write one word on the talk page until the article was protected during the most recent Rob Sherman dispute. What's your excuse for that? So you're saying that you're NOT repeating yourself because your original interpretation of policy is correct? You think so highly of your interpretation of policy that you don't bother to respond to a refutation of it? Interesting. I'm not sure how consensus building can take place when editors won't even hear counter-arguments. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AF, I suggest you check your facts: Turkey has commented numerous times on this talkpage, well before the Rob Sherman dispute. And you certainly have not commented on the talkpage each time you have reverted: in fact you've been blocked twice for editing warring on this very article, unlike anybody else. The strawman arguments addressed to Turkey above are extremely unhelpful. If you want others to help you get this article up to WP's standards, then you need to work on increasing the civility of your interactions with other editors. I had seen progress in this area and you need to keep that up.

Can you post your proposed new text here, with citations, please? Once I see what you have got I will fill in what I can.--Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I wasn't edit warring. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't outright lie by saying my reverts did not always come with an comment on the talk page. Note that included in the examples of incivility is "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors." I guess you somehow think breaching the 3RR means I didn't comment on the talk page for each of those 4 reverts or something...? Not sure how the logic works there. In any case, I can count 3 posts I've made, asking other editors to stop blatantly edit warring while my comments were unaddressed on the talk page. Do you need the difs? I made two lists, perhaps you remember? One is still visible. The other was vandalized by one of the deleting editors. Inspiring good faith display there. I suppose the attempted justification is that I'm "repeating" myself. However, not one example of this has been provided. In any case, WP:CIVIL says, "Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions." I have never made a personal attack. I've complained of the bad faith of other editors, and while my comments are being deleted or unaddressed, I will continue to do so.

I'll propose a revision for the Inquisition later tonight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this edit [129] followed by this edit [130]? And this edit [131] followed by this edit [132]? And this edit [133] followed by [134]. Where are your talkpage comments between these, AF? Please strike your comments about lying immediately, and an apology would be nice. You are on very thin ice, AF, and for one last time I am urging you to reconsider your approach to communication with other editors. --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe for the first four reverts, neither party was using the talk page at the time. The 5th is a reversion of a revert with no edit summary. The 6th points to a comment with no response. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(indent) "But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't outright lie by saying my reverts did not always come with an comment on the talk page." This is what you said. Now you are admitting that in these particular instances you did not actually comment on the talkpage. What other editors were doing doesn't matter. Please strike your comment that I was lying when I said that you have not used the talkpage every time you reverted. --Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Got me on a technicality. Ok, you're right. I did revert reverts that were not accompanied by comments on the talk page without adding a second, unaddressed, comment to the talk page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is copied straight out of History of atheism where no one had a problem with it.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, the word 'atheist' was used exclusively as an insult; nobody wanted to be regarded as an atheist. How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of Étienne Dolet who was strangled and burned in 1546, and Giulio Cesare Vanini who received a similar fate in 1619. In 1689 the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński, who had allegedly denied the existence of God in his philosophical treatise De non existentia Dei, was condemned to death in Warsaw for atheism and beheaded after his tongue was pulled out with a burning iron and his hands slowly burned.

This is also mentioned in the same article.

The charge of atheism was used as way of attacking one's political or religious enemies. - John William Draper, 1864, History of the intellectual development of Europe, page 387.

That's pretty much everything I want to say about the period. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources for the second half of the paragraph? They may not been required by editors on the History of Atheism WP article, but there are here, especially as WP is not a reliable source for any information. I also don't think a book published in 1864 would be considered a reliable source for a 21st century encyclopedia. Find some reliable sources please.--Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The references are in the articles that are summarized. Follow the wikilinks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should think a book published in 1864 would be just as capable of measuring public opinion of atheism in the 16th and 17th centuries as a book published in the 21st century, if not more so due to temporal proximity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include the material, you have to be able to verify the material and where it came from. Which pages of which book is the material sourced from? Please provide the specific citations, please. Remember that WP is not a reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 387. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because I don't see anything on page 387 about atheists at all. Did you actually read it? --Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Boniface neither believed in the immortality nor incorruptibility of the soul, nor in a life to come, nor in the real presence " AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How does that verify the statement "The charge of atheism was used as way of attacking one's political or religious enemies."?? --Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That comes in a list of accusations against a political enemy. Read the context. This is one example of the charge of atheism being used to attack a political enemy. It's probably an over-generalization to use this alone to make that claim, admittedly. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A sincere well done to you!! It's original research sourced to a primary source and you figured out that is problematic. We need secondary sources for this sort of thing, and there are lots of them, so it won't be a problem.--Slp1 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will copy and paste for you.

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• La Vie et L'Oeuvre de J.C Vanini, Princes des Libertins mort a Toulouse sur le bucher en 1619, Emile Namer, 1980

de:Lucilio Vanini fr:Giulio Cesare Vanini it:Giulio Cesare Vanini he:לוצ'יליו ואניני oc:Giulio Cesare Vanini sk:Lucilius Vanini sv:Lucilio Vanini tr:Giulio Cesare Vanini

• Skorobohaty, Walerjan (1840), Historical Sketch Of The Rise, Progress And Decline Of The Reformation In Poland V1, University of Michigan

• L. Łyszczinskij, Rod dworian Łyszczinskich, S. Pietierburg 1907.
• A. Nowicki, Pięć fragmentów z dzieła "De non existentia dei" Kazimierza Łyszczyńskiego (by a script fromLibrary of Kórnik nr 443), "Euhemer", nr 1, 1957, pp. 72-81.
• A. Nowicki, Aparatura pojęciowa rozważań Kazimierza Łyszczyńskiego (1634-1689) o religii i stosunkach między ludźmi, "Euhemer, Zeszyty Filozoficzne", nr 3, 1962, pp. 53-81.
• A. Nowicki, Studia nad Łyszczyńskim, "Euhemer, Zeszyty Filozoficzne", nr 4, 1963, pp. 22-83.
  • A. Nowicki, Pięć wiadomości o Łyszczyńskim w gazecie paryskiej z roku 1689, "Euhemer, Zeszyty Filozoficzne", nr 4, 1963, pp. 40-44.
  • A. Nowicki, Sprawa Kazimierza Łyszczyńskiego na Sejmie w Warszawie w świetle rękopisu Diariusza Sejmowego, znajdującego się w Wojewódzkim Archiwum Państwowym w Gdańsku, "Euhemer, Zeszyty Filozoficzne", nr 4, 1963, pp. 23-39.
• Ateizm Kazimierza Łyszczyńskiego, (w:) A. Nowicki, Wykłady o krytyce religii w Polsce, Warszawa 1965, pp. 51-68.
• Janusz Tazbir, Historia Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce (1460 -1795), Warsaw 1966.
• Pomian-Srzednicki, Maciej (1982), Religious Change in Contemporary Poland: Secularization and Politics, Routledge, pp. 103–4, ISBN 0710092458

Do you read Polish? Have you read any of these books? Which book and which page number goes with each statement in your proposed paragraph? You need to verify the information yourself, not just cut and paste lists here. --Slp1 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying these sources are not reliable because you have not read the books? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another strawman. Where did I say anything about whether these were or were not reliable sources? I asked you to verify the information you wish to include in the article by providing specific citations from reliable sources for it. That's all.--Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided books and I have provided page numbers. That is all. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, I'll go to a library tomorrow and verify the information provided is in the sources at the specified locations. Then will you be satisfied? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) , if you haven't read the books, you can't verify their content which is what is required here. Somebody could have added any old thing on the other page, and we can't just assume that what is on a WP article is accurate. You need to provide some citations from reliable sources that you have actually read yourself. If these are important atheists and important persecuttion this shouldn't be difficult at all. Try googlebooks.--Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh yeah, that's what you would do at a library. Read books. In any case, a quick google shows this information is pretty trivially verifiable. For the first person listed:[135][136][137][138] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The second:[139][140][141][142] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Having trouble finding sources on the last guy. This one I think you'll consider reliable: [143] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here goes again; this time I had to add a third column, because about half of these links given don't allow one to actually see what (if anything) the sources say about the subject.

Source	Third Party?	Rep. for fact checking etc?	Verifiable? Can we see what the source says?	Comments
1911encyclopedia.org	Yes	No	Yes	A webpage that anybody can edit.
encyclopedia.jrank.org	Yes	No	Yes	A webpage that anybody can edit.
1893 book	Yes	No?	No	Possible reliable; but a googlebook link with only snippet view, so it impossible to verify what it says about Dolet. It seems to be an ancient guidebook to Paris, and mentions a statue of Dolet in a park.
1910 Encycl Britannica	Yes	Yes	No	Possibly reliable (if a very dated) source but impossible to verify what EB says about Dolet since no preview is available.
Age of Reason	Yes	Yes	No	Possible reliable; but a googlebook link with no preview, so it impossible to verify what the book says.
The Wages of Sin	Yes	Yes	Yes	Says that Vanini was strangled, but not that he was an atheist. Says instead that he "attacked church doctrine and believed in medical astrology".
Book about Descartes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Says that Vanini was a priest-scholar who challenged the theological wisdom of the church and was accused of atheism.
1910 Encycl Britannica again	Yes	Yes	No	Possibly a reliable (if a very dated) source but impossible to verify what EB says about Vanini since no preview is available.
talk by Kaz Dziamka	No	No	Yes	Talk by an "independent scholar" whose training is in Native American studies; in any case does not give details of Łyszczyński's execution and only says that he was executed for "questioning the existence of God"

Conclusion: these sources do not verify the paragraph you have proposed above. Neither Dolet or Łyszczyński's fate nor the reasons for it are verifiable from the sources given; there is more on Vanini, but there is no clear evidence that he was executed simply for being accused of being atheist; this source you presented [144] emphasises that Vanini thought sexual intercourse was a good medical cure for various diseases, and sees this as a major reason for his execution. --Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All the previews you say are unavailable work for me in firefox. Let me read them in more detail and see if they say what you're asking for. Also, if you want to verify for yourself what they say, try using the search strings visible in the previews (despite the fact that the pages are not) in Google. Somehow, going to the site from google allows you to see the pages. I had to do that to verify the Age of Reason quote. My search string in that case was, "Giulio Cesare Vanini strangle age of reason" which produced the source in question as result #1. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Vanni, Encyclopedia Britannica says, "In November 1618 he was arrested, and after a prolonged trial was condemned, as an atheist, to have his tongue cut out, and to be strangled at the take, his body to be afterwards burned to ashes. The sentence was executed on the 9th of February 1619." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Dolet, EB says, "From a first imprisonment of fifteen months Dolet was released by the advocacy of Pierre Duchitel, bishop of Tulle; from a second (1544) he escaped by his own ingenuity; but, venturing back from Piedmont, whither he had fled in order that he might print at Lyons the letters by which he appealed for justice to the king of Frnce, the queen of Navarre and the parlement of Paris, he was again arrested; branded as a relapsed atheist by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne, and on the 3rd of August 1546, put to the torture, strangled, and burned in Place Maubert. On his way thither he is said to have composed the punning pentameter--Now dolet ipse Dolet, sed pia turba dolet. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Age of Reason says regarding Vanini, "Vanini affirmed his belief in God, but Francon alleged that the prisoner had more than once professed atheism, saying that Nature was the only God. The judges accepted the evidence, and despite Vanini's passionate protests and the piety that he showed in his cell, they condmned him--thirty four years old-- " (long quote) "...bind him to a stake there erected, cut off his tongue and strangle him, and afterward his body shall be burned . . . and the ahses thrown to the wind." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that these sources are clearly asserting that atheism was the charge used to justify their executions. If not, reliable sources on this stuff was not difficult to come by. I'm hoping this is a chore you won't force me to do with such obvious sources available. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source in English stating that Lyszczynski was executed for being an Atheist:
(Skorobohaty 1840, "Chapter XV", "page 412 -415") "Cazimir Lyszczynski, a noble and landowner of Lithuania, a man of a very respectable character, was perusing a book entitled Theologia Naturalis, by Henry Aldsted, a Protestant divine, and finding that the arguments which the author employed in order to prove the existence of divinity, were so confused that it was possible to deduce from them quite contrary consequences, he added on the margin the following words — “ergo non est Deus,” evidently ridiculing the arguments of the author. This circumstance was found out by Brzoska, nuncio of Brest in Lithuania, a debtor of Lyszczynski, who denouned him as an atheist, delivering, as evidence of his accusation, a copy of the work with the above-mentioned annotation to Witwicki, bishop of Posnania, who took up this affair with the greatest violence. He was zealously seconded by Zaluski, bishop of Kiod, a prelate known for his great learning and not devoid of merit in other respects, which however proved no check to religious fanaticism. The king, who was very far from countenancing such enormities, attempted to save the unfortunate Lyszczynski, by ordering that he should be judged at Vilna; but nothing could shelter the unfortunate man against the fanatical rage of the clergy represented by the two bishops; and the first privilege of a Polish noble, that he could not be imprisoned before his condemnation, and which had theretofore been sacredly observed even with the greatest criminals, was violated. On the simple accusation of his debtor, supported by the bishops, the affair was brought before the diet of 1689, before which the clergy, and particularly the bishop Zaluski, accused Lyszczynski of having denied the existence of God, and uttered blasphemies against the blessed Virgin and the saints. The unfortunate victim, terrified by his perilous situation, acknowledged all that was imputed to him, made a full recantation of all he might have said and written against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, and declared his entire submission to its authority. This was, however, of no avail to him, and his accusers were even scandalized that the diet permitted him to make a defence, and granted the term of three days for collecting evidence of his innocence, as the accusation of the clergy ought, in their judgment, to be sufficient evidence on which to condemn the culprit. The fanaticism of the diet was excited in a most scandalous manner by the blasphemous representation that divinity should be propitiated by the blood of its offenders. The diet decreed that Lyszczynski should have his tongue pulled out, and then be beheaded and burnt. This atrocious sentence was executed, and the bishop Zaluski himself gives a relation of what he considered an act of piety and justice! The king was horror-struck at this news and exclaimed that the Inquisition could not do any thing worse. It is necessary, on this occasion, to render justice to Pope Innocent XI., who, instead of conferring a cardinal’s hat on the bishop of Posnania, bitterly censured this disgraceful affair."

You can verify the quote for yourself since the book is available online here. selfworm^Talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Selfworm for the research. I see a few problems, unfortunately. The first is that this book was self-published, as is clear from the title page, [145] and is thus not a reliable source as it did not have any editorial oversight. An additional problem is that this book is 169 years old, and obviously it would be much better to have more recent scholarship on this matter. Not only much better but in this case necessary since this 2003 highly reliable source ( written by the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University and published by a University Press) [146] specifically notes that while atheists in the nineteenth century claimed Dolet as an atheist martyr, this is erroneous in the view of the author. See also this other recent reliable source for further commentary about how interpretations of this issue have changed in modern historians.see p. 56-57 Given that it is very clear that the historical reading of these matters has changed so much in the last 150+ years, recent scholarship must be our priority. Because of this I am extremely cautious of the 1911 EB material, as well as this 1840 source. But I think that there are enough reliable sources around that make the general points that people were accused and convicted of atheism in the Middle Ages (and after) and were executed horribly, though we need to make clear that atheism meant in that era was something very different than it means today. Vanini and Dolet are probably the most significant examples, I would think, and would be sufficient. --Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slp1. That this source is over a hundred years old does not in any way make it invalid; you can look to Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about what constitutes a reliable source. But if self published sources are not valid then here is one that you should find acceptable and which I have read: "Problematyka wyznaniowa w praktyce parlamentarnej Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1648-1696" by Jacek Witold Wołoszyn, published by "Semper", 2003. (You can find it on Google Books). Furthermore, you can find many more sources listed in the article on Kazimierz Łyszczyński.

After this you start to go off topic. Note that my comment was intended to give a source to the following claim: "Kazimierz Łyszczyński was executed on charges of being an atheist". You start to talk about topics such as Dolet and on changes of interpretations over time, which are not pertinent to my comment and which I assume are from some other conversation. Take care. selfworm^Talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Having helped write 3 featured articles, I am actually quite familiar with the criteria for reliable sources. Here is some interesting discussion about the care that needs to be taken when using older sources such as these [147] I'm sorry that you felt that I was going off topic: I was attempting to show (using the Dolet information as a specific example) that modern historians doubt the claims of 19th century historians about who was and who wasn't atheist at the time. I continue to believe this issue is relevant when considering the 1840 source you kindly produced. BTW, if you disagree with my view that the self-published book would not be considered a reliable source, especially given the doubts about accuracy of historical research in this topic area at the time, then feel free to ask for another opinion at the WP:RSN.

Thank you for your second reference which seems to meet the reliable source criteria nicely given that you have read it and can verify the statement above that you note. As I said above to AzureFury, the references given above in a copy and past from the Łyszczyński article are only useful if one can get access to the full texts of the books/articles listed and can actually read Polish. That is the only way that editors wishing to add material here can actually verify the information is in the source given as required. I assume that you can do both! And in fact, now that I search only for his last name, I find a 2000 source in English from Cambridge University Press.[148] --Slp1 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that info; I found it very helpful. Also, I placed a reference to "A History of Polish Christianity", the book that you found, into the Kazimierz Łyszczyński article so that now we have an up-to-date English reference for the article. Take care. selfworm^Talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Prospects for section on Iran

While it has proven notoriously difficult to provide sources proper in both reliability and direct support of claims in this article, I would like to draw attention to a document that I have found which might be used for a section about Iran. The document is "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran," released by the FIDH. On page 6, atheists are mentioned as an unrecognized group that has to mark a faith in order to get into any university in the country, "In the same manner, atheists do not have any recognized status. They must declare their faith in one of the four officially recognized religions in order to be able to claim a number of legal rights, such as the possibility to apply for the general examination to enter any university in Iran4."

I know that this does not say, "atheists are discriminated against in Iran," but it is difficult to understand what would be novel about including it in this article, considering that the statement comes from an article about discrimination against religious minorities in Iran. As such, I don't believe that we would be introducing anything truly original by including in our article about discrimination material from an article also about such discrimination.

According to WP:OR we must "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Do I seem correct in thinking that the source is directly related (being about discrimination of religious minorities, after all), and that basically paraphrasing the material would preserve the presentation found in the source? If we can agree that there is no OR and that the source is reliable, then we can hopefully include a note about Iran. Please, I welcome discussion of this, A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a proper source, not OR and would be a useful addition, especially if the view is attributed to the FIDH. I have, BTW, been doing some searches for reliable sources of my own, and in my view it may be desirable to consider a significant reorganization of the article; in particular, I would suggest dispensing with the country by country format and going more by era, and by theme (including issues in Western countries, and Islamic countries together perhaps, with brief examples of discrimination). This seems more in keeping with the sources I have found to date, and seems more encyclopedic in any case. I have started some work here [149]; it's a very rough beginning and currently from only one source, but there are many more sources available, and I would be glad for comments or additions there --Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Region by region seems to be a logical way to format it, though I think that would break up the article in much the same way it is broken up now. I don't think you could lump the US in with Europe anymore especially regarding religion. As I understand it, European politicians avoid talking about their religion, as opposed to US politicians who brag about it. In any rewrite, I'd like to preserve the first paragraph of the US section as much as possible. It is well sourced, I think, and contains very important background information explaining the situation of atheists in the US. WP:PRESERVE is an important policy to remember before any grand undertaking. Anyway, you guys know my liberal stance on WP:OR, heh. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there would have to be separation of some of the US material, but many of the legal aspects are similar in Europe and the US are quite similar so that could go together. I will take on board your desire to preserve the information you mention; but please understand that WP:PRESERVE contains significant caveats about what should be saved, your liberal definitions of OR notwithstanding!!! For example, the court cases etc are interesting and should be mentioned as claims as discrimination, but are probably in a bit too much detail given that none of the cases have actually succeeded. Similarly, since disapproval is neither discrimination nor persecution, the details of the poll given in the first section is likely in too much depth. But there will be other things to add.--Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The poll is the heart of the matter. Not to mention this is another issue that I could easily prove significant press coverage. Either leave it in the article, or find some place else to cover it, so we can link there instead. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's already covered word-for-word at Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists. Link there, and I'm satisfied. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)