Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Militant atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This article was militantly merged into antitheism by User:Merzul, please discuss Talk:Antitheism#Dumped a lot of material. --Merzul 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Much needed ...

There are 60,000 ghits for this term, it needs its own article. NBeale 09:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Militant atheist" is a reasonably common term, but is it a subject? (cf "militant palestinian", "militant feminist", "militant trade unionist" etc) --Dannyno (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think antitheist would be more of a valid subject or topic than "militant atheist", although technically, there might be some differences between the terms (e.g., not all atheists are antitheistic per se, and there might also be some deists, agnostics, ignostics, skeptics, rationalists, positivists, humanists, liberal religionists, or other freethinkers who are antitheistic but not, strictly speaking, atheist). Also, there might be some people who might describe themselves as "antiTheist", in that they are against the belief in a particular or specific alleged god, such as God, but not necessarily against beliefs in others, such as the pagan gods or those of Eastern religion, etc. That's just my 10 cents, to express what I think Wikipedia should include and what any would-be editors/deleters/mergers of this (these) articles should consider first. For the record, I favor keeping both articles separate (antitheist and militant atheism). Shanoman (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the list of militant antitheists should include not only Dawkins and Harris (though they are very good choices and should top the list), but also Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Shanoman (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shanoman. I agree we should have articles on both antitheist and militant atheist but they are separate topics (with <10% overlap by ghits FWIW). Dennett is described in a WP:RS as a M.A. here I'll add it to the lead. I don't personally think Hitchens really belongs in a lead. NBeale (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead in

I don't think there is evidence to say that this is usually used as a perjorative term (and I def wouldn't regard a citation by Mark Steyn as proof!) and in any case it's OR to say so. Lenin and Carmen Argibay and Joseph McCabe certainly don't use it in that sense. And no-one uses it to mean "people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which implicitly promote atheism". Can we stick to the neutral formulation in the lead-in please, and if you want to discuss the perjorative/descriptive aspect perhaps you could make a properly refed section?NBeale 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You want proof that it's pejorative? Just look at the citations given in that list of "Commentators who use the term" - there is all the evidence you need! Alternatively, look up "militant" in the dictionary. Snalwibma 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So Lenin was using it in a perjorative sense?? Also the definition you offer "people who are more outspoken than the general population on the subject of atheism" makes no sense to me at all. I am more outspoken than the general population on the subject of atheism. So am I a "militant atheist"? Furthermore no concievable content by Steyn could substantiate the assertion being made (since it is a subscription only article I can't see what he says, what are you quoting specifically?) we need to stick with the term as actually used by reliable sources, not what we think some people might mean by the term NBeale 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted this a bit, although perhaps we should go all the way and follow Eskow who is quite specific about what he means and I think his sense is in conformity with all the other commentators(?) NBeale 06:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! That lead is much better. I had indeed twisted it a bit in doing it rather hastily. In my defence, I did feel it was important to reflect the fact that it can be (a) pejorative or (b) a "badge of honour" (though I'm not altogether happy with that formulation). Your rewrite is a great improvement. But I think the main issue we need to address here is whether the article is needed at all - see below. Snalwibma 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear ...

I see trouble ahead! POV wars here we come, unless we are extremely careful. This article could so easily become a name-calling roll-call. Admittedly it is only a stub, but the present structure is woeful - just a list of articles in newspapers in which the term has been bandied about, and those who have been described as "militant atheists", almost always pejoratively. It badly needs some historical background, some context, some explanation. I am therefore restoring something of the lead section which mentions the pejorative nature of the term. Also - what on earth is "See also anti-intellectualism" doing there? I will delete this weaselish link! Snalwibma 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll own up to the anti-intellectualism link. If we were to have the Charles Moore quote denigrating how clever Dawkins et al are then read the Anti-intellectualism#Religious_fundamentalism paragraph and you'll find that the path is well lit by others before Moore. Ttiotsw 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I get it! But on its own, as a solitary "see also" link, it looked as if it was making some kind of point about the intellectual validity of "militant" atheism. Maybe we just need a rather longer list of "see also"s. Snalwibma 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking about "see also"... here are some:

atheistic evangelism
antitheism (mentions militant atheism)

Perhaps some of these could even be merged. --Merzul 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like a good case for a merge! In particular, atheistic evangelism looks like exactly the same subject. On reflection, I see no justification for two separate articles. Snalwibma 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 628 ghits for "atheistic evangelism" and over 60,000 for Militant Atheist. And no-one as far as I know self-describes as an "atheistic evangelist". NBeale 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

I suggest moving it to Militant atheism (—ism rather than —ist), following Atheism, Theism, Monotheism etc. That way, it is also less likely to start looking like an exercise in name-calling! ;-P Snalwibma 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and do this! Snalwibma 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I think there is a good case for a merger with atheistic evangelism. Maybe that article should in fact be renamed militant atheism, and some content be merged from here. I'm not convinvced of the need for two articles, whatever it's called.
On the other hand... As NBeale says above, it is important to "stick to the sources", and I think that means sticking to the term "militant atheism" itself. And, come to think of it, this tends to push in favour of keeping a separate article on this specific topic, and not merging with atheistic evangelism or anything else! Is there a justification for a slim separate article which covers very precisely the uses of the specific term? Would such a venture in fact be a good way of avoiding the POV and OR pitfalls? Snalwibma 07:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and merging will not so much avoid any POV pitfalls, but it would allow commentary on essentially the same phenomenon to be treated together. These terms are used interchangingly by both sides, so for example Kurtz's editorial equally applies to "militant atheism". I would prefer to see these two articles "militant atheism" and "evangelical atheism" redirect to perhaps big subsections within antitheism, where the historical context can be expanded. I mean, let's not be fooled by what people call themselves, I think the following are just as militant as other outspoken atheists:

It basically depends on what we want here, if we are going to focus very deeply on the usage of each term, then merging is inappropriate, but I don't really care about how these terms are exactly used, I think we can leave that kind of research to lexicographers, and instead focus on the more broader concept of people actively campaigning against theism. This would require some restructuring of the antitheism article, but I think it would end up a far more comprehensive entry for all three terms rather than having separate entries listing their usage. Anyway, now I'm really going off on a wikibreak! :) --Merzul 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 60k ghits for "Militant Atheist", 32k ghits for "Militant Atheism" and only 632 for "Atheistic Evangelism". So I think the re-titling is questionable and the merge to this scacely-used term would be quite wrong. NBeale 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the move to —ism is "questionable" (well, I would, wouldn't I?). Number of ghits is quite irrelevant. Apart from adherence to normal WP naming conventions, if it's called —ist then it looks like an invitation to let it degenerate into a list of "here are some people who have been labelled militant atheists". If it's called —ism then it more clearly expresses an intention to develop it into an article about the concept, how and when and by whom the term has been used, etc, bringing in some secondary sources and commentators. The problem at the moment is that it is mostly just a list of people who are alleged to be "militant atheists". The "commentators" for the most part are not commentators in any meaningful sense at all, just people who happen to have used the term, in many cases quite casually. If the article is to stay we need some good sources about the concept. I propose to do something about this, but I'd still like to see what others think before jumping in. As for the merge - maybe it's a merge from, not a merge to the scarcely used term. Or maybe not. Let's wait and see what develops by way of discussion (if anything!). Snalwibma 07:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All the terms...

All the various terms used:

Each of these terms have been used in reference to Richard Dawkins. I would prefer a merge of them all into antitheism, which states "An alternative term for this stance is militant atheism but not in a violent militaristic way." On the other hand, have look at feminism... perhaps we should even have cyborg atheism. --Merzul 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (I have taken the liberty of adding one to your list! Snalwibma)

Excellent, thanks Snalwibma, and I added one more, but still no Cyborg Atheism... --Merzul 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Commentators" section

I'd like to wait and see what hapens to these suggestions of renaming and/or merging before doing much to this article. But I am concerned about the section on "commentators". Most of this is a selection of stuff from the popular press which seems to amount to little more than name-calling by atheist and anti-atheist journalists. I don't think much of it meets the criteria for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. So what if a London psychiatrist who has made a bit of a name for himself in the media applies the label to Richard Dawkins? So what if a Washington journalist writes a blog (and it is, as far as I can see, a blog) in which he uses the term "militant atheist" and possibly (though not very clearly) applies this label to another journalist called Polly Toynbee? Most of this stuff, IMHO, should be shown the door. If the article stays, we need a serious discussion about the use of the term in more noteworthy contexts, not a collection of "oh look, here's another one" selections from the ephemeral press! Snalwibma 12:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem right now, what we need are secondary sources about the term. We need sources that define and discuss the term, not just use the term. This is an important distinction, see further Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. For us to track usage of terms is of course original research, we need meta-level sources about the term. --Merzul 15:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

I have tagged this article with the wonderfully brilliant synthesis template. I think I created it specifically for this article, or perhaps it was for self-refuting idea :P But the point is again the same. We need sources who actually say things like "here are a few commentators that use the term", because it is not our job to pick such references ourselves. Once we have a few general sources on militant atheism, its history and usage, I think nobody will object to fleshing it out with a few little extras here and there, but what is disturbing is that this article doesn't have a single reference that would serve to discuss this at secondary level of analysis. --Merzul 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. I'm afraid this is a confusion. The tag says "Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Militant atheism"." Well the article (which was originally about militant atheists) started from a piece called "Militant atheists: too clever for their own good" and also cites "15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion" so there are 2 already in the article. You seem to think that before we can have an article which uses sources about X we have to have a reliable source which discusses "sources about X" - this is not WP policy and could not be because it leads to an infinit regress. NBeale 07:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, you are absolutely right. I have spent some time looking for the existence of the concept of "militant atheism", and can find nothing other than the phrase (or "militant atheist") being bandied about either as an insult or as a badge of honour. I'd be very interested to hear what others (especially NBeale) have to say about this. Where does the concept exist as a subject, a theme, a social/religious/political commentary? We must have some of this stuff in the article, or it's just empty extracts from non-notable journalistic sounding-off. Snalwibma 07:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash)Merzul has a good point. At the moment this article is just a name calling list which quite frankly should be deleted. By changing it from ist to ism there is a chance to make this something worth reading. It is a well established term and I would like to see the history of its usage which will of course include examples of how it is used but these will then be in context.

NBeale - try to look at it with fresh eyes - this phrase was not coined to describe Dawkins but the number of examples with his name in them would make the casual reader think so. Sophia 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Comment) - if you look up "militant atheism/ist" on google you do in fact get a lot of Dawkins-related hits! I guess, therefore, that the present slant of the list is a fair reflection of the google-view of the world - but we need to go on from there and ask whether that google-view is the best view for this article to reflect! Snalwibma 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to make something of this article, and I sincerely hope we can do so by a process of cooperation. The concept of "militant atheist/ism" is interesting. Who coined it? When? What are its connotations? Who now uses it? Is it ever a neutral term, or is it always loaded one way or the other? Lots of good questions about it - but I can find no answers! I could easily go and do google searches and find lots more examples to add to the list of people who have used the term or had it used about them - but I don't think this is the right way to go. Can anyone come up with a source for the concept as such? I must confess I'm struggling! Snalwibma 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sorted the list of examples into what I hope is a more logical and helpful order. I haven't cut any - though I think much of it could in fact be cut! When you actually follow up the references you find that it's nearly all journalistic and ephemeral fluff with no real substance. It's quite interesting to have a link to Charles Bradlaugh, but when you ask who it was who called him "the first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization" you find that it's actually from some anonymous and blog-like website, not from anything remotely like a reliable source. And the reference to Paul Foot turns out to be just a chance use of the words "militant atheist" in a newspaper obituary. We must do better than this, if the article is to have any future. But where is the material? Snalwibma 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Snalwibma, the questions you are asking are precisely what an entry on "Militant atheism" must cover and the direction you are taking the article is very good, I'm not against having this a separate article, if we can answer the questions you are asking and find the material you are looking for. Otherwise, merging doesn't mean we must lose much of the material, but to put it somewhere were such questions can be answered.

Responding to NBeale above. Policy isn't very clear on this issue, it does say "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources", but the guideline of neologisms is much clearer, especially this part with some added emphasis by myself:

The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In any case, this is the appropriate way to do things, and it is not an infinite regress, the distinction is easy. Take the example with "new prog":

Reviewer X calls band Y a "new prog" group in a review published some famous magazine.
The times has a piece saying "And lo! The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne, or crazy prog, which is a funny title, but not terribly descriptive." <--- secondary level of analysis!!!
Wikipedia, being a tertiary source, draws mainly on such secondary level analysis.

Naturally, this is a rough division, it is not always easy to say what is a primary or secondary source. Except some simple cases, e.g. The Bible is always a primary source. And we can naturally also draw from other tertiary sources like the Britannica, but we should not rely too much on creating a narrative by stringing together an original presentation based on such primary level usages of a term. --Merzul 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a Neologism!

However we look at it, a term used by Lenin in 1923 cannot be described as a neologism! NBeale 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like "evangelise" (or "gay" I suppose) the context in which it is used also needs to be considered. Older UK-based commentators will be influenced by the antics of the UK Labour militants. Moore's anti-intellectual tirade, though honest, highlights the silo mentality that a system of faith mandates. The same accusation can be levelled at science; interdisciplinary scientists are far and few between and are valuable (is Dawkins such a person ?, is this the cause of the invective i.e. he pops his head, waving his arms, out of his silo ?) but the differences between the silos lie in the self-correction mechanisms. With theistic faith the mechanism functions at a glacial pace in the order of centuries whereas Science adapts as rapidly as new evidence appears. Though Moore found the atheists more believable his approach was to not examine the evidence as presented but to revert to oblique and asymmetrical ad hominem attacks on the atheists. Oblique because they avoided the subject at hand and asymmetrical as they ignored the other side of the debate panel. Moore was doomed by his faith and we should not simply publish any commentator who is simply presenting what is an inevitable side effect of their worldview. To spike this accusation of neologism once and for all we would ideally need a meta-analysis published from a suitable source of how commentators use the term in the context of today. I don't think this has been done. Ttiotsw 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course it's not literally a neologism, but the issues it throws up are very like those covered by the WP policy on neologisms - and those issues are what we need to address if we are to make progress. Snalwibma 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the idea here is that the various guidelines try to capture different aspects of the very same simple idea: we want to write a quality encyclopedia, and not publish original thought. The spirit of this endeavour is to try to follow analyses that has already been published. This doesn't mean there is no room for creativity, but the issue is to find sources that discuss Lenin's use of the term and puts it in context, perhaps even giving some insight as to why the term is gaining popularity now and what is the present context per Ttiotsw's discussion. --Merzul 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" as a concept, an encyclopedic subject, really only has much currency in the context of the policy of the USSR. Beyond that, what is there? Nothing encyclopedic whatsoever. I'd be happy to fold this into State Atheism, which I think is really where it belongs, otherwise the analogy would be with Idiot (person listing every newspaper columnist who ever called someone else an idiot. --Dannyno (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary level sources

Well, it is hard to find, so let's post here if you do find something:

List of sources

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1997/october97/fahringer.html -- very biased though, but is discussing the term, not just using it.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/RespectReligion.htm -- atheist bias obviously, and "new atheism"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3195 -- theist source, seems to discuss context.
Levkievskaia, E. The Silent People? Soviet Militant Atheism Through the Eyes of the Russian Peasant. RUSSIAN SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW 2003, VOL 44; PART 4, pages 78-97 [7]
HERBIGNY, Michel d', Militant Atheism. The world-wide propaganda of communism ... Translated by G. H. J. Dauncey ... [from “La propagande soviétique antireligieuse”]. Revised and brought up to date by the author. (pp. 80. S.P.C.K.: London, 1933.) [8]

Discussion

Ah, well, there might be hope for this. ~~One source about the term's modern usage, but it is quite polemical.~~ --Merzul 13:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a few sources, I would still very much prefer a merge, as I said above, people are using these terms completely interchangingly to refer to the same phenomenon, I don't see what is the purpose of keeping separate articles for essentially the same issues. This are fringe articles anyway, will remain rather stubby, as opposed to a proper treatment at one place so editor effort isn't dispersed, we don't have so much redundant information. Quality over quantity in short, and we have even section redirects so each term could be redirected to the appropriate section if need be. --Merzul 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added an article and a book about Soviet militant atheism (neither of which I have seen). Snalwibma 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Feuerbach?

Who? If this person deserves to be added to the list, we at least need to know who he or she is. The wikilink leads to a disambig page with four or five people listed. Which one is the person in question? And where does he/she fit in to the story? The name is just chucked in, and it doesn't even make syntactical sense. Please (someone who knows) enlighten us and sort it out! Please don't just dump ill-formatted stuff and leave it for others to sort out. Snalwibma 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(BTW - I do know who Feuerbach was, so there's no need to tell me here! Just trying to make a point... Snalwibma 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

And now someone called Charles Baker, from the 1920s but just tacked on at the end of the list, with no consideration for how (or whether) he fits in. Until NBeale comes here and discusses what is best for the article, I will start deleting all these pointless additions. Snalwibma 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's best for the article

Well it's Start Class so that's something at least. The reason I added Baker was because of the "definition" given. I was actually looking for the call by Engels that Lenin cites, but it seems no refs for that are available. I think however that we have essentially the same definition from 1923 and 2007 so we can regard it as an established term. I'd still suggest a structure that went:

Meaning of the term (cite Lenin and Eskow)
MA an exemplified by MAs of the 18thC (defining C by date of death)
19thC
20thC
Contemporaies

This would give a logical and NPoV structure from which the article could grow organically. What do people think? NBeale 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems very reasonable, if it can be achieved, and if there is actually anything there to grasp hold of. As you will see, I have had a bash at redoing the lead section. Doing my best to give an accurate account. But I'm still stumped by the Big Question: What does the term militant atheism actually mean? Apart from Lenin, it seems to me it has had a shifting meaning, and it is nearly always used in a very Humpty-Dumptyish way. Lots of connotations, no clear denotation, almost universally a loaded term, used as a loaded weapon, to attack or defend rather than to state or define in a neutral manner. Ingrained POV, which the article about it must be careful to avoid absorbing. Snalwibma 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of that historic outline is already under anti-theism, I don't understand why we need redundant low quality articles, when we could focus efforts on writing a good encyclopaedia. This is ridiculous, we have a secondary source Julian Baggini who say antitheism is sometimes called "militant atheism"... let's merge and write quality articles instead of having to struggle with original research. Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought! I am going to merge the relevant information from here into that article, it will begin as a subsection, but perhaps it can be better integrated. --Merzul 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I reached consensus with myself that merging all of this into antitheism is the best way forward. They will all get their subsection to discuss whatever specific material about any particular term, but the above historic outline should be developed for all of them collectively. So there is still a lot of work, but now there is some hope for a quality article, please discuss how to integrate all this material here. Also, if this was too militant, then reverting is very easy, no need to scream at me for being bold, I think this was a genuinely good move, and it is not suppressing any information, it will all be there for everyone to see, but the history can now draw on a lot more sources. --Merzul 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the move to Antitheism#Militant atheism - Hi Merzul - you are clearly having a fruitful wikibreak! I was a bit taken aback to find it done, just like that, but on reflection I think it's a good move, and may indeed solve the problems inherent in an article called Militant atheism. The trouble with "militant atheism" is that it's only one way of describing a belief/attitude/set of attitudes which can also be given various other labels, and it has more connotation than denotation. As a standalone it says "there is a thing called MA", and because there really isn't it will end up as a name-calling list. As part of a larger article on Antitheism it says "one label applied in these circumstances is MA", and I think that is a far more accurate reflection of the truth. Same goes for atheistic evangelism etc. Not that I know - I'm only a biologist who stumbled into this stuff by mistake! Snalwibma 06:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - good move. The term is now in its proper context so the POV name calling issues have gone. It also avoids the undue weight of this minor term having its own article. Sophia 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

New and imporoved article

The present article has been developed in Antitheism but there is now a consensus that it does not belong there. We have a proper definition from Julian Baggini and plenty of examples. However I have had to remove the "generally used confrontationally" section because the ref does not support the statement at all. NBeale (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it's better not to explicitly link militant atheism to antitheism, we still have the problem of conflating the definitions (Talk:Antitheism#Conflation_of_.22militant.22_definitions). There is no evidence that the numerous usages of "militant atheist" that we present in the article are all in the same sense as Baggini's.

I also disagree that on such a broad topic, one person's definition can be presented in the lead as being the only definition. Can we find more? Mdwh (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, it occurs to me that Baggini's usage is just another use of the term, and should therefore be included in the list. E.g., there is no reason to favour his usage of the term over say, Rodney Stark's. It would still be nice to have some general definitions, but short of just giving the dictionary definition of militant, this may be difficult due to POV issues. Mdwh (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out back at antitheism, Baggini's characterisation of "militant atheism" is just his particular formulation of a position he wants to distinguish from his own. What significance does it have beyond that? None, so far as I can see. --Dannyno (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And another thing. Are there any substantive reliable sources which treat of "militant atheism" as an actual subject (as opposed to using the term to characterise someone else's position), but which are not about the USSR/League of Militant Godless? --Dannyno (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What we really need is a reputable dictionary's (or more likely, a philosophy/theology encyclopedia's) definition of militant atheism. In lieu of that, this topic barely qualifies as article-worthy (partly just because we don't know what to write about, beyond an aforementioned laundry list of disparate uses), and I still favor the dab version (which could easily be sourced if we felt the need, though there's zero OR in it). Articles like Feminazi and Islamofascism, by comparison, have articles only because various dictionaries do in fact list them. -Silence (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've looked in various places but failed to find such a definition. It says something that after a couple of years, we still don't have a good definition of the topic, and we really really should have one. I would say this is because there is no such definition (outside of USSR history), and that if such a thing cannot even be provided after a couple of years, then kill the article. There's stuff here that belongs in other articles. But there's no encyclopedic content for an article of its own. --Dannyno (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see the objection to Baggini's defintion. Recall that this is from the book Baggini was commissioned to write by OUP to give an Introduction to Atheism. This is far more authoritative than your average dictionary - and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that definitions have to be from a dictionary, just a reliable source. NBeale (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I take that point. And I wouldn't insist that only dictionary definitions are acceptable at all. However, unless there are other reliable sources that characterise "militant atheism" in the way Baggini does (given that Baggini cites nobody else on the topic), then we are, I think, giving Baggini's pejorative characterisation undue weight. At the moment all we have is an article apparently about Baggini's use of the phrase. --Dannyno (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Baggini characterises "militant atheism" in different ways in Atheism:avsi. On p.88 he says: "It is one thing to disagree with religion and quite another to think that the best way to counter it is by oppression and making atheism the official state credo. What happened in Soviet Russia is one of the reasons why I personally dislike militant atheism." And on p.90 he refers to "militant or fundamentalist atheism, which seeks to overturn religious belief by force." He associates "militant atheism" with State Atheism. --Dannyno (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other definitions

Here's another definition:

In the ideological lexicon of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), atheism is a basic doctrine, which manifests in two major forms: scientific atheism and militant atheism. Scientific atheism, as the offspring of the European Enlightenment Movement, regards religion as illusory or false consciousness, non- scientific and backward; thus atheist propaganda is necessary to expunge religion. In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of the anti-revolutionary forces; thus forces may be necessary to control or eliminate religion. Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures.(p.103)

Source: Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China", Sociology of Religion, Vol.65 (2), Summer, pp.101-119. [9]

--Dannyno (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks this is v interesting. Though I'd be cautious is using definitions which appear to be based on Chinese concepts because these are often subtly different from Western ideas of the same name, in ways that we westerners usually don't understand. Of course Christianity is now growing v rapidly in China and cooperation with religious organisations is now part of the constitution of the CCP, but that is since 2006. NBeale (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The author refers to the European enlightenment and to Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks. --Dannyno (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they know about these things in China :-). However he is talking about the lexicon of the CCP - which is in Chinese - and the Chinese equivalent of "militant atheism" will almost certainly not mean quite the same as "militant atheism" does in English. eg "amour propre" in French does not really mean the same as "love of self" in English. NBeale (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the author is talking about a literal lexicon! Anyway, it's not for you or I to interpret this article. --Dannyno (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need a separate section on Marxism-Leninism?

Why do we need a separate section on Marxism-Leninism? NBeale (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "Militant Atheism" has a specific historical meaning in the context of Marxism-Leninism and the USSR, that's why. Lenin wrote of the need for an active atheist campaign (hence, "militant atheism") thereby setting himself apart from Marx, or an interpretation of Marx. The section needs expanding, certainly, and will be. Clearly Lenin's recommendation of "militant atheism" is also distinct from the non-Marxist freethought tradition.

As I've indicated before, at the moment this article is in danger of being a POV fork, with its completely inadequate opening citation of Baggini and all. If we want a serious article, we need to be clear about what the different concepts associated with the term are. First and foremost is the association with Lenin; then there are other applications of the term. --Dannyno (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Neologism???/Not appropriate

Someone put a Neologism tag on. Given that there are 35 refs going back to 1894 this seems to me absurd. As for "not appropriate" - can someone at least sketch an argument why it might not be? NBeale (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what is meant by the tag is that it is a recent phenomenom to combine the two words to form one phrase, rather than to use the word "militant" as an adjective, or to more clearly describe the organised nature of a particular atheist movement. The phrase "militant atheist" as used in the current social atmosphere brings information about the user of the phrase as well as the recipient of the moniker, and as such is a neologism, since as a phrase it is best understood within the current context. Ninahexan (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lenin refs are clearly using the term "militant atheist" - I don't think the 1930s are "recent" from the PoV of Wikipedia. Also the term is applied both by christians, militant atheists and non-militant atheists. I know that some people currently don't like the term being applied to them, but I don't see why that makes the term a neologism. NBeale (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly not a neologism, given references from 100 years ago that use the term. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It has far from become commonly used, and has not been accepted into the cultural lexicon yet. If you were to do a survey the vast majority of people would only understand it by using "militant" as an adjective (and their idea would most probably be very different from the definition given on this page). "Militant atheism" is not a unit in itself yet, and so in my mind is a neologism. Ninahexan (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Baggini

It is not clear why Julian's definition is veiwed as more important than that of anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.200.205 (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. I have edited the lead section so that at least Baggini's view comes after a more general description of the topic. The whole article really needs attention, however. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this quote should be moved down to a different section, as it still seems to be held as a more important viewpoint, being alone w/o any other quotes. Maybe another quote with the opposing view should be there as well? 76.219.110.140 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We should begin with a definition from a WP:RS. Baggini, writing for OUP, gives such a defintion. Unless and until another definition from a person of similar standing in a similarly RS can be found it is right to single out Baggini's. NBeale (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's undue weight. --Dannyno (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad examples.

A few randomly-chosen bad examples:

Rodney Stark is quoted without any mention of the fact that he's an apologist for Creationism.
The French Revolution example is supported by a book review written by a college student, not by actual usage in the book being reviewed.
Francis Crick, even in the quote given, does not speak of militant atheism. This is OR/SYNTHESIS.

Also, the fact that this term is typically a pejorative should be mentioned in the lede, not buried. Phil Spectre (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to cut the examples down to just the good ones, but I wound up with nothing. I'm sure I cut too much, though nothing stops us from adding material. Feel free to do so, but let's do it with caution and forethought. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is going far too far. These examples were the work of a lot of editors, and stood the test of time for many months. If you are going to remove them the remmoval needs consensus. NBeale (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Rodney Stark, but certainly the French Revolution thing is not appropriate, and the Crick quote appears to be misused. Get rid of them. --Dannyno (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative?

Perhaps it's sometimes perjorative, but I don't think we can say "generally". Many of the examples are referring to people with approval as M.A. NBeale (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - but I do think it's important to refer to the fact that it sometimes is (or often is, or generally is, or is very likely to be) pejorative right at the start. It's never a neutral term, and we want this to be clear from the outset. It's used (I reckon) either as a derogatory label or as a badge of honour. Maybe, in fact, that's what needs to be said in the lead. Do I have any source for this opinion? No, not yet... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd to start with X is sometimes perjorative and then give a definition - do any other similar articles do this? NBeale (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When you have a group of atheists with guns... such as in the Soviet Union, and they go around lining up people who are believers, and shooting them... and far worse, why would "militant atheists" be anything other than a descriptive term? If anything, it is perhaps a bit too mild a term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Such comments are not particularly helpful, Frjohnwhiteford. The discussion is about what the subject matter of this article is. To me it seems solely to describe a perjorative, used not by anyone who might possibly call themselves "militant atheists", but a term that is used by some to describe people of a wide variety of beliefs that they happen to disagree with. As such it does not describe "militant atheism" at all, but rather the people who use the term to denigrate others. So it might very well be questioned if this is subject matter worth an article. And if it is, then at least there is a definite need of a discussion about how to present such a subject in encyclopedic terms. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So if a psychopathic murderer would not apply the label "psychopathic murderer" to himself, that would make it a pejorative term in your view? What label would you apply to atheists with a military who kill people because of their faith? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of what term any particular wikipedia editor considers appropriate for a range of beliefs and behaviours he/she happens to dislike, but of what terms are used in external sources, and how such terms are used there. And "militant atheist" is generally used as an attack - just as you are using it here. So to describe it a pejorative is exactly right. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is used in many highly respected sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. I am sure that most people who are racists do not use the term "racist" as a self identifier, but that does not make the term less appropriate, if indeed it is warranted. A pejorative is a term for something that is used merely to add an insult. In this case, it is a term that succinctly describes a phenomenon. I asked you to tell me what term you would apply to this phenomenon. Since you have no alternative suggesting, clearly there is no less pejorative alternative. We could limit ourselves to one and two syllable words, and use clumsy circumlocutions to describe everything, but we have more elaborate vocabulary precisely because such terms contain a lot more meaning in a lot fewer words. You cannot dispute the fact that Militant Atheists have killed more people in the 20th century than any other group has killed in the entire history of mankind. A group with so much blood on their hands deserves a label of some kind, and if you are an atheist yourself, I would think you would want a more precise term that distinguished your own form of atheism from the form that is responsible for so much murder and misery. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion, however, is not the subject of this article. So let's set that aside. You say the Encyclopedia Britannica "uses" the term. It may do, though I just had a look and it doesn't use it in its entry on atheism. So where and how does it use it? You neglect to say. As I've said before, "militant atheism" has some meaning in the context of the Soviet Union, and is perhaps most usefully discussed in the article on State Atheism. But it is not really an encyclopedic subject in its own right. --Dannyno (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Snalwibma may think that the murder of an untold number of believers because they were believers is not relevant to the topic of militant atheism, but I don't see how he can reasonable defend that position... but let him try, if he wishes here. And by the way, if you would like additional documentation on the subject of the mass murder of Christians at the hands of the militant Atheists in Russia, I have plenty of additional reliable sources that could be brought to bear here. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about "militant atheism", the meaning of the term, the way it has been used. It is not an article about the evils perpetrated by atheists or in the name of atheism. You are stuffing the article with irrelevant facts in order to push a point of view that is at best tangentially relevant. The article has already clearly established that the atheist regime of the USSR was described as "militant" and also acted in a militant fashion in a literal sense by killing religionists. Anything more is mere fact-stuffing in pursuit of your personal agenda. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If one were to argue that mentioning the numbers of people killed by the Nazis was "irrelevant" to a discussion about the meaning of "Nazism" how would that argument be different than the one you are making here? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added links to relevant articles about militant atheism. I must say I have noticed a bit of whitewashing and bias by apologists here on wikipedia and articles relating to atheism in how they wish to treat this encyclopedia as a dictionary. So here I will speak for myself in that I accept the definition of encyclopedia as

a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.[10]

I added this clarification so that at least my perspective could be spelled out and validated. As slander, and repression of peoples' civil liberties and their wholesale murder for not getting with the program is something that should be included in an encyclopedia article striving for all aspects of one subject. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuffing the article with “well-referenced” facts in order to push a point of view

The article is currently being stuffed with all sorts of references to the evils of the atheist Soviet regime, as evidenced by its killing of numerous theists/believers, and various items are being added to the “see also” and “external links” lists that are about the evils of the Soviet Union, not about the concept of militant atheism as such. Please someone tell me if I am wrong, but I think this represents a complete misreading of what this article is about. This is an article about militant atheism – the term, how it has been used, how the concept it describes differs from antitheism, plain vanilla atheism, etc. It is not an article whose purpose is to demonstrate how “militant” and therefore “evil” some atheists have been, in the opinion of certain Wikipedia editors. There is a world of difference between the concept of a ‘’militant atheist’’ (one who is “militant” in his atheism) and an atheist who is considered to be “militant” in the sense of attacking/killing/whatever other people. In particular, I object to the slanting of the article towards this second interpretation when the sole basis for doing so is the opinion of one or two Wikipedia editors. The Soviet Union described itself as militant[ly] atheist, and has been so described by others. Fine, let's include that information. We can also agree, I guess, that the Soviet Union's destruction of churches, murder of christians etc was bad - but unless there is a clear link between the "militant atheist" label and the evil deeds, to include an extensive catalogue of the latter is pure original research, synthesis, and POV-pushing. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for engaging in Edit Warring by violating the 3 revert rule. Please see notification here [11].LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please...! By all means engage in a discussion here, but don't waste my time, your own time, and other people's time with silly accusations. I have been careful not to break either the spirit or the letter of 3RR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted out this sentence from the article body.

"Many churches were either destroyed or converted to warehouses and museums as can be seen in the examples of Pochayiv Lavra, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Donskoy Monastery. "

How is the League of the Militant Atheists taking churches and church properties converting them to museums of atheism and then providing specific churches and church property that this was done to, how is this POV or original research? Please explain.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that paragraph it came at the end of starts as a discussion of the way in which the Soviets were described (by themselves and others) as militant atheists, and how the particular brand of atheism espoused in the USSR was "militant", but then the paragraph moves on to a general attack on the evils of the Soviet regime, as evidenced by various murders, massacres and other destructive acts. It is not clear that there was any connection between the "militancy" of the atheism and the destruction of the churches. I want to keep this article focused, and I do not want to see it degenerate into a general "atheism is evil" or "atheists kill people" diatribe, which is where these additions seem to be heading. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. There is no connection between the militant Atheism of the Soviet State, and its brutal policies to eliminate religion and establish Atheism as the only acceptable view of religion? That is precisely what militant atheism is all about -- spreading atheism by coercion, and that is precisely what the Soviet state tried to do. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that you should then make the appropriate changes to the article and or best of all suggest whatever changes you would like here on the talk page. There is no lie or original research in what happened under the league of militant atheists in Russia. The facts of historical events are not matters of POV. Your posted concerns are also against Wikipedia policy. As the article should state the events and facts related to the subject matter regardless of what opinion readers might draw from the text. Your position is not reconcilable to the goals of the wiki project. If you found the wording inconsistent then you could have posted this concern here and or simply altered the text in question in the article. Deleting the information is not the same as correcting it. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree with Snalwibma. Militant atheism is clearly a disputed concept, but the article fails in most ways to make throw light on this dispute. The main aim of this article ought then to be to cover this dispute through reliable secondary sources discussing the theory behind this. The Julian Baggini definition and the section labeled "Concerns about the use of the term" is a start of what this article should be about, but the list of examples needs some weeding out. And yes the various "See also" with links to "Mass graves in the Soviet Union" and "religious persecution" are nothing but POV-pushing and needs to be removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust is clearly a disputed concept... by those who prefer to believe in fantasy rather than reality. Militant Atheists are responsible for well over a 100 million deaths. The number of those killed specifically because they were believes is hard to separate from those who were simply inconvenient to the militant Atheist states that killed them, but that they killed people specifically because they were believers in huge numbers is an undeniable fact of history. Atheists that blow up Churches, convert churches in to dance halls, cinemas, and museums, and kill those who resist them are clearly not pacifist Atheists. They are militant atheists, and the Soviets never denied the label. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead, as discussed in the section above, is probably the first that needs a reworking. It fails to give a definition of the subject matter, and it uses a primary source in a manner that could be said to be WP:SYNTH. Furthermore it also suffers from the fault in the rest of the article of just giving a bunch of examples with no attempt at explanation of either different circumstances or any theory behind the concept. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that Snalwibma should have continued to violate wikipedia policy and engage in Edit Warring. You also agree that this encyclopedia article should not contain any history of events propagated by proponents of militant atheism. Now this seems outside of the function of an article that is supposed to be informative of the subject matter. Point is a group of human beings labeling themselves, by Russian congressional law, "militant atheists" engaged in historical events. Events that they not only participated in but also initiated. Their documented reason for initiating these acts of violence was their belief in "militant atheism". By your support of your friend you are saying that this is unworthy of account let alone mention in an encyclopedia article about the subject of militant atheists. If this is your position it is one of a logical and obvious fallacy, as encyclopedia article covering militant atheism. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please by all means write a clear and source-able first paragraph, lead and then explain to me how this is a justifiable rational to remove historical events committed by people labeled militant atheists. As edit warring and disruptive editing can not be justified by your comments that amount to the Red herring of the style over substance fallacy. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tone down the personal tone a bit, Lovemonkey? We are discussing the content of the article, and the main problem is the lack of an actual definition of the subject matter. I have not yet touched on the subject of the "militant atheists" of the Soviet Union, because it does not really matter as long as there is no proper definition of the term. We can return to that subject when the premise of this article has been defined. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please post what you are referring to. There is nothing that I have posted that indicates my tone. Please post specifically what I posted that you think is too tone high and needs to be brought down. If not then your comments are not assuming good faith and also remain consistent with your use of the style of substance fallacy. Which does nothing to improve the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I will elaborate, though I fail to see any constructive purpose of this. I was referring to the following statements: "So you agree that Snalwibma should have continued to violate wikipedia policy and engage in Edit Warring". I have never said anything like that, it seems to be your lack of good faith speaking here. And "By your support of your friend". User Snalwibma is not my friend, in fact I had no clue of the user's existence until this recent discussion. And then of course your recent posting, where you claim that my cautioning you to remain calm and refrain from getting personal "remain consistent with your use of the style of substance fallacy". I can see now how this article has been kept in this sorry state for so long, as this is clearly a case of WP:OWN, defended by a user that obviously has no interest in any discussion of improvement of the article but instead resorts to personal attacks and non sequiturs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

<I often don't agree with Smalwibma but he is a v experienced editor and I don't think he is likley to have voliated the letter or spirit of WP policy. There does seem to have been a bit of a flurry around this and I suggest we calm down. Certainly Militant Atheism isn't just a concept/term. At certain times in history Miliant Atheists have had considerable political power and it cannot be irrelevant to give links to articles which explore this in more detail. But we need to be careful not to go overboard. As for the definition: Baggini is a WP:RS and I think we should stick with this rather than try WP:SYN. NBeale (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No in order to collaborate one must ask questions. Your accusations are disruptive and do nothing to improve the article. Look at the last 3 edits why did you not make those edits. The article did not even have categories. But your here on the talkpage defending people edit warring and then denying it. It seems to me that you are most defensive. And overly sensitive and your comments like "I will elaborate, though I fail to see any constructive purpose of this." Appear condescending to me asking for your clarification. Your still picking at style over substance while not contributing substance. Your posting so far can not remove that obvious truth. As for you seeing. Your vision is very near blindness, I say this because I have not contributed to this article until today, so your lack of good faith in blaming me for it's content is worse then shortsighted. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok NBeale that is in the collaborative spirit of wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is Militant Atheism?

This whole discussion (or "discussion") shows why I have a big sense of unease about this article, and why I was quite pleased a couple of years ago when it was merged with antitheism - which is how it then stayed until a few months ago. The article is based on a phrase that has no clear meaning, and which is used (a) as a means of attacking an atheist with whom you particularly disagree (or by whom you feel particularly threatened), (b) occasionally as a kind of badge of honour by atheists who wish to proclaim something above and beyond "ordinary" atheism, (c) historically, in connection with a few specific individuals and movements (Hobbes, French revolution, Soviet revolution - more recently Dawkins et al., maybe). Given the lack of focus in the article, it tends to act as a magnet for those who wish to push an anti-atheist line - and I think this is precisely what is happening now. The term militant atheist becomes, not a label applied in particular ways in particular external sources and reported on by Wikipedia, but an invitation to Wikipedia editors to indulge in their own synthesis and original research. It's as if the article on Islamic fundamentalism was filled with material (all from reliable sources, no doubt) pointing out how offensive Islam in general is to people who do not share its beliefs, or as if the article on Fundamentalist Christianity was used as a platform from which to denounce the dangerous ideas of the more extreme elements of American conservatism. This article hasn't gone that far, but I am wary of it doing so. The article is in danger of turning into a soapbox. This is a tricky subject, and it needs sensitive handling. It has also proved pretty elusive over the years! There isn't in fact very much "out there" on the topic, bar a few key mentions - but often barely more than mentions, and that leads to people trying to "fill in the gaps" with some well-meant but unhelpful details brought in from sources that an editor thinks are relevant but which don't really help to address the central question - what is "militant atheism"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I make this another topic - this thread has become a bit ... well... It's hardly surprising that some people use the term approvingly and some disapprovingly, but I see no evidence that the meaning changes. What is wrong with Baggini's definition? NBeale (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea to make this a new topic! I don't in the least object to Baggini's definition, and in fact I agree with it, as far as it goes. The problem, though, is not the denotation but the connotation of the term. Every use of "militant atheism" comes with accompanying baggage, depending on the user's beliefs and attitudes. And one particular form of baggage is getting piled up, to the exclusion of all other types. Instead of a cool analysis of the concept, we end up with a mere rant about the evils of atheism, an article that instead of helping the reader understand invites the reader to condemn. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever argued that the article on Nazism invited people to condemn rather than to understand? There seems to be an awful lot of attention to the negative side of Nazism, and not one mention of building of the autobahn. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any examples of Militant Atheists running a country in which people were not butchered, and their religious freedoms taken away. In fact, I doubt many atheists would choose to live in and raise their children in any of the countries that have been or are run by militant atheists. This may sound very negative, but those are simply the facts. Feel free to present us with reliably sourced facts to the contrary. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While you clearly feel strongly about this topic, I don't think comments like the one above are very helpful towards working out what this article should be about. An article along the lines you suggest would be unacceptable for WP:POV reasons - and there isn't a universally accepted definition of 'militant atheism' in any case. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why an article along those lines is acceptable when it comes to the Nazis... who were amateurs by comparison, when it comes to mass murder... but not acceptable when it comes to the reigning world champions of mass murder? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'Militant atheism' is a phrase, not an objectively definable concept - although Baggini's definition comes as close to a neutral description as any could. It's been used throughout history to mean various different things; the only consistent definition it seems to have is 'atheists who, in my view, go too far to push their views on others' or even simply 'atheists who I don't like'. I think it's arguably a pejorative term, although it has been used as a neutral descriptor as well. This article, then, should focus (as it does now) on the uses of the phrase, to provide examples of what it can mean; it definitely shouldn't become an article listing the bad things about atheism and historical examples of alleged 'militant atheists'. That sort of thing belongs in Criticism of atheism and similar articles, not this one. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know what the term means... it's just that some would prefer to ignore the historical reality that goes along with it. People use the word "Nazi" to apply to people that they don't like, but there is an historical meaning for that term that is unambiguous, as is the case with militant atheism. "Militant" has a meaning that is defined. "Atheism" likewise has a meaning that is clear. When you put the two words together, the meaning is also very clear. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No we don't. Even the most cursory glance at our articles on Militant and Atheist (Atheism) will show that these are extremely nuanced terms in their own right. Joining these words together does not suddenly add clarity and so we can only ever understand what that phrase means by looking at the context of who is saying it and to whom they are targeting with the description. The more modern use as a pejorative is in sharp contrast to the use in the Soviets of the word "Militant". I view claims of Dawkins as a militant atheist on a par with my aggressive non-collecting of beer mats. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do. If a group by government authentication engaged in wholesale oppression and murder whom called themselves and the government whom empowered them also called them officially atheist.. Then yes you have to. Their official government recognized name was militant atheist. This is a matter of history not of your opinion or what you think. Their official name given to them by the government that funded their activities was militant atheism. How is such a historical fact open to your opinion?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The modern use of "Nazi" as a pejorative does not change the historic meaning of the term. Calling someone a Militant Atheist simply because they are an outspoken atheist would be a pejorative use of the term. Calling someone a Militant Atheist who advocates the use of coercion to eliminate religion from the public square or in some other way would be completely legitimate, and in keeping with the historic meaning of the term. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Throughout, you seem to be putting your own particular slant on the term militant atheist, and ignoring the nuances, contexts, and alternative viewpoints. Unlike Nazi, which refers primarily to a specific movement (though it is also used metaphorically), militant atheism is just a phrase, and one that has been used in a range of different contexts. Your interpretation is in accord with one of the meanings, in one particular historical context, but there are two problems with this approach: (1) The Soviet government at various times applied the label to themselves, and that is interesting and worthy of analysis, but we must be wary of going on from there to categorise all the evils perpetrated by the regime as due to their "militant atheism". (2) By adopting an assumption that there is one obvious and agreed meaning of the term (connotation as well as denotation) we imply that those who have more recently been described as "militant atheists" (Dawkins is the obvious example) are guilty by association of the same sort of crimes as the Soviet authorities. The article (a) must focus on the phrase itself (and variations), not on the activities of atheists who in the judgement of certain Wikipedia editors are considered to be militant atheists, and (b) must consider the term in a nuanced way, acknowledging the variety of meanings. At the end of the day, it's an article about a phrase, not about the evils of atheism or the crimes of the Soviets. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is David Duke part of the historic movement of Nazism? No. Did he identify himself with that movement when he became a Neo-Nazi? Yes. We could talk about any Militant Atheist government you wish, and the results are essentially the same -- you can start with the French Revolution, and continue on to the Communists in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and China, and the results are very consistent. Where are the good examples of militant Atheist government? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said, exactly what I have tried to say all along, although admittedly with less eloquence than you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said that User talk:Snalwibma is not your friend. This is the second time you have posted your support. Why are you not holding him to the same standard as the rest of the editors you disagree with. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As you seem unable to discuss this matter without making it personal and derailing the subject with irrelevant and unfounded accusations etc (see both above and below), I will as of now stop replying to your comments. When you are able to discuss the actual article content I will get back to you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you are now stating that you are above criticism (but allowed to post your support for comments that are ever bit critical) and at the same are supposed to be engaging in collaboration. You validate that you have no intention to adhere to wikipedia policy. You are in essences saying you will continue to engage in edit warring. As such I think it is only fair to assume that you have no intention and never did you have the intention to collaborate. As such the page needs to remain protected and I need to file another notice of disruptive behavior. As it appears you can not compromise and have no intention to do so then you do not be need to be here working in a collaborative environment. This is not my opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So if someone calls themselves a bigot why now are we to assume that the word or phrase has a different meaning when one person uses it over another. I mean if someone got on TV and said I am a bigot why should I assume that this person is now "not a bigot"? I mean Richard Darkins calls himself a militant atheist CNN calls Richard Dawkins a militant atheist.[12]. Either Dawkins is ignorant of what the terms has as a history (which means he is not informed?) or he willfully embraces the label and must accept the baggage that comes with his choice to express his allegiance. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

One brief reply, then I'm done until certain people show a modicum of civility. You ask "why now are we to assume that the word or phrase has a different meaning when one person uses it over another?" Precisely. That is exactly the point. Words and phrases have connotations as well as denotations, and of course they mean different things in different contexts. I have done my best to explain the way I see the shifting meanings of militant atheism, and why the article must take these into account, but it is impossible to argue against the Humpty Dumpty approach that a word means exactly what the speaker wishes it to mean, and no more. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again your actions do not support your comments. You made no edits to the article to reflect such a distinction. You have deleted censored removed comments with summary justification that contradict not only your call for civility but also that you would tolerate any distinction other then your own. [13] You can not edit war and delete factual information that is document in a book peer reviewed about the history of the Orthodoxy Church. A book that attributes death and repression to militant atheism and then say that you are open to contributions that show a wide variety and spectrum in how the term militant atheism is understood and referred to. You can not have it both ways.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the intention of some editors here appears to be to write about the Soviet Union's repression of religion, and there is not much consensus on whether "militant atheism" means anything beyond the Soviet Union, why don't we do the obvious and merge what is worth saving here into the State Atheism article or the Religion in the Soviet Union article, or the Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation article or the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article. As it stands, this article is merely a POV fork for material that, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in one of those articles. We've just going to end up with yet another slant on the particular historical situation. --Dannyno (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Uneven and blatant hypocritical behavior

User:Snalwibma is edit warring. As a result of User:Snalwibma behavior this page is now protected. User:Snalwibma is being disruptive and not assuming Good faith. Here is but one example of User:Snalwibma and a comment just they just made.

"user's beliefs and attitudes. And one particular form of baggage is getting piled up, to the exclusion of all other types. Instead of a cool analysis of the concept, we end up with a mere rant about the evils of atheism, an article that instead of helping the reader understand invites the reader to condemn."

User:Snalwibma is making counter-productive and inflammatory comments.

"The term militant atheist becomes, not a label applied in particular ways in particular external sources and reported on by Wikipedia, but an invitation to Wikipedia editors to indulge in their own synthesis and original research.'

User:Snalwibma is attempting to establish an impossible criteria as the basis for this article. By posting comments like.

"The term militant atheist becomes, not a label applied in particular ways in particular external sources and reported on by Wikipedia, but an invitation to Wikipedia editors to indulge in their own synthesis and original research."

User:Snalwibma shows a bias toward whitewashing and protecting this term even at the expense of short changing and silencing, censoring actual history.

1st revert: [14]
2nd revert: [15]
3rd revert: [16]
4th revert: [17]
5th revert: [18]

User:Snalwibma has apologists who are tag teaming and not holding User:Snalwibma and atheism to same standard as they are historical events instigated by militant atheists or just atheists. They are doing this by denying that the propagators of mass murder and repression of people freedoms clearly identified themselves as militant atheists and that these same propagators stated that they engaged in these murders and oppressions because of their belief in militant atheism. [19] User:Snalwibma and crew here know that the other atheism based articles and their page edit warring buddies (note the presents of Ttiotsw for example) will delete content wholesale and deny that the content they delete is appropriate from their understanding of the subject and then send the editor to other like subject articles. As User:Snalwibma is now completely reversing their position as they wrote.

We can also agree, I guess, that the Soviet Union's destruction of churches, murder of christians etc was bad - but unless there is a clear link between the "militant atheist" label and the evil deeds, to include an extensive catalogue of the latter is pure original research, synthesis, and POV-pushing. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Snalwibma then proceed to edit war and remove links and sourcing that showed exactly the connection they denied, requested and obviously don't like. This is defamatory and edit warring and destruction behavior. To say that they disagree because there is no established connection and then wholesale delete contributions that show that there is a connection and is sourced is behavior that should not be tolerated. As to what happened to me when trying to add content to the antitheism article. Edit warring. Wholesale removal of peer-reviewed articles and denial that the events and history related to the subject. Some stuff here. Hypocrites decry censorship and then engage in removing history. Being critical of editors here and then engaging in behavior I have outlined in this entry. Behavior that has caused this article to be protected. Censors silence facts and historical events. No hair splitting nor pedantic wrangling will change to us what atheists did to our loved ones and friends in the name of atheism. Some editors on here exhibit those censoring, silencing and repressing characteristics and not giving people their right to be critical and tell what happened due to this movement and in the name of this movement. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. If Militant atheists in the name of militant atheism killed theists and repression their civil rights as a matter of historical fact then all of the events that can be validated deserve an entry in an encyclopedia. Why not this one. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here nor is this article here to please, appease User:Snalwibma it is here to provide information of what a subject is and the history of that subject. Sourced content about the subject that meets wiki policy criteria belongs in the article regardless of if User:Snalwibma and his fellow editors like it or understand it or not.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I invite someone to get rid of this inflammatory, irrelevant material, either by archiving it or by simple deletion. I won't do this myself, because I don't want to be accused of improper behaviour. I will merely commment that I have no idea what LoveMonkey's problem with my contributions is, either to the article or to this talk page. I am expressing opinions. I am doing my best to improve the article. I am commenting on contributions, not contributors. I am not edit-warring. I am not in league with anyone. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

These comments do not reflect your actions against other editors on this article.

1st revert: [20]
2nd revert: [21]
3rd revert: [22]
4th revert: [23]
5th revert: [24]

You have deleted factual information. You have deleted information sourced from a book published by an Oxford academic (Kallistos Ware) you have used the flimsiest of justifications to engage in edit warring and violating the WP:3RR rule. You continue to deny your behavior and try and project your own unacceptable behavior onto editors you disagree with. I have noted and posted your behavior in a format used here at wikipedia. I did not violate the 3rr and then deny that I did that was you. You are still engaging in disruptive editing and appearing to not compromise one iota. Even in the face of documented peer reviewed sources that you have continued to remove, delete from the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with trying to move an extremely problematic article towards NPOV. This often involves the removal of POV pushing material. Hans Adler 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. Do you accept that if a group that called themselves militant atheists killed several million people and repressed peoples religious rights then what they did should be included in an article name militant atheism? There are criticism sections to various articles here on wiki correct. Like say Christianity for example. Why then are editors allowed to do edits like this one [25]? How is removing links critical of this subject justified under "not relevant"? How is that good editing how is that acceptable and how is it that this individual has yet to be called to task for this type of inexcusable disruptive edit warring behavior? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so it has articles about topics, not entries about words or expressions. This article is trying to cover an expression with unclear meaning, not a topic. That's the fundamental problem.

Specifically to your diff: I agree with the removal of these links. The first is not appropriate here because criticism of atheism is relevant to this article only because it is relevant to atheism and atheism is relevant to this article. The second link target is perhaps slightly more relevant, but still not relevant enough to justify such a prominent link from an overall topic to a TV documentary.

Perhaps you understand the problem better if you think about "see also" links to psychology of religion and Religion Explained. I guess you wouldn't be too happy about them. They would be just about as relevant as the other two, which means that they should also not be there. Hans Adler 11:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"I guess you wouldn't be too happy about them". Already throwing policy out the window Hans Adler so much for assuming Good faith. But let me guess my one single response to you above makes it OK for you to get rid of WP:AGF. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to guess your reaction to these links. Even if you wouldn't object to them, I hope you can see my main point, which remains unaffected: We can't include all links of similar relevance, and in fact we shouldn't include any of them. Hans Adler 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for your comments above. The term definition that User:Snalwibma has already agree upon is in the lead. So your comment:"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so it has articles about topics, not entries about words or expressions. This article is trying to cover an expression with unclear meaning, not a topic. That's the fundamental problem." Is completely out of context with what has already transpired here between User:Snalwibma and User:NBeale. So no, there is already a definition agreed upon and sourced for the term in this article. You also state that you agree with the removal of the links but dodge the actual question. If you come across an extremely problematic article one that appears to have a dominate editor who is engaging in edit warring with other editors (just in case you missed User:Snalwibma 3rr vio is on another editors contributions not mine) do you try and write and add a complete section of content which would be deleted or do you do add a link. Small note here my question was should this article have a criticism section. You did not address that. As for your reasoning as to why my link should have been removed. You have two editors that disagree and therefore before doing 3 reverts on those links is edit warring and not engaging in dialog on the article talkpage. So I am attempting to clarify. I apologize if my points before unclear. Let me be real clear now. Should User:Snalwibma continue to revert and violate 3rr to remove those links or should he BEFORE reverting the links discuss there removal here on the talkpage. So which behavior for User:Snalwibma do you User:Hans Adler endorse?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not endorsing anything. It is not my habit to come to quick conclusions about complicated questions. Many problems at this article are extremely complicated due to the problem I mentioned, and which you repeated literally. I am not here as a referee between you and Snalwibma, and I am not anybody's sockpuppet. If you and Snalwibma agree that it's fine to have this article, and to make it define "militant atheism" the way it does, then I am under no obligation to agree unless you can convince me. I have not yet made up my mind whether "militant atheism" deserves its own article any more than "brutal honesty", or indeed "militant Christian", which gets a similar number of Google hits. But very likely neither of these terms should be the title of an article. Basically, these are invitations to write a free-style school essay rather than encyclopedic topics. Hans Adler 14:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok what about the policy WP:Harrassment for example in specific -User space harassment. User:Snalwibma has now twice posted personal attacks and blunt denials that they violated WP:3RR to my talkpage. Does it not seem that splitting the article discussion and then seeding it to an editors talk page is disruptive and could be seen as an attempt to frustrate the editor that is being bombarded with now multiple locations of disagreement? Doing it twice is an obvious pattern and won't that kinda seem like harassing behavior? Just asking. Let alone that it also appears to attempt to make the issue or issues on personal by taking them to a persons talkpage. So User talk:Hans Adler what is your position on the WP:Harrassment policy and also if User behavior according to WP:EW is or is not edit warring?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I should not rise to the bait, but I do feel sufficiently harrassed to post diffs of the "personal attacks and blunt denials" that I am said to have posted on LoveMonkey's talk page: [26], [27]. OK, maybe the first was a bit blunt - but I hardly think this constitutes misuse of a user talk page, let alone harrassment! I have reported this editor's behaviour to ANI: [28]. Meanwhile, I suggest that this whole section of the talk page has (almost) nothing to do with the article, and is in breach of WP:TALK, and should be deleted or collapsed by means of {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}}. As the principal subject of the attack contained in this section, I will not do this myself. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for your content concerns why should I consider it rational to think that an article you already agree is extremely problematic not have some content in it addressing its controversies and or criticisms. The section name or the way that content is addressed I am not debating but rather that any of it be allowed in the article in any form. Also I am accusing User:Snalwibma of edit warring for committing reverts like this one [29] Where I posted a sentence that contains historical facts and locations and it was label WP:Original Research. So that I might placate an administrator or to about you bias Hans Adler please explain to me how that was a logical deletion and how his summary was good editing and inflammatory and insulting.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Militant atheism as a side-effect of materialism should provide the basis for edits.

On the issue of the actual content then the issue I see is that what killed people in the Soviets was a state actor that was based on some form of Communism. That people who subscribe to communism of Engels/Marx and Lenin are "atheists" is simply a side effect of the materialism in the dialectic materialism originally presented by Engels and Marx well before the Bolshevik revolution. There is an oft-mentioned figure of "100 million" that is associated with atheists but this number comes in part from The Black Book of Communism. On that Wikipedia article we doesn't actually mention "atheism" at all and even on the Red Terror article we also don't mention "atheism". This is for an obvious reason - the atheism isn't relevant. What *is* relevant is the dialectic materialism. If you follow the philosophy from the Communist Manifesto though you'll probably find that the materialism isn't one of nature verses the supernature but "the materialist conception of history". In modern times you obviously can now have supernature with Communism (vis-a-vis the Catholic Communists of Italy), but 150 years ago there were no political expressions of these new philosophies: it was only theory in books. The repeated attempts to turn this article into a coat-rack of abuses of communism makes as much sense as plastering an article on car engines with various high-profile car accidents because all cars have car engines and cars crash. We're discussing a component not the end product i.e. communism has traditionally promoted materialism of which atheism is one example of how this is expressed but we're discussing atheism and so whilst we can discuss materialism it is a bridge too far to then jump to the excesses of communism. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then what is an acceptable number then? Again is White's number and Encyclopedia Britannica acceptable sources for a actual figure or not?

David Barrett, Todd Johnson, Justin Long

World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it. It has a single page [30] estimating the number of martyrs since the origin of each religion:
At the hands of...
Atheists: 31,689,000[31]

LoveMonkey (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No figure is needed at all and certainly not such a figure that is so unbalanced. Your link ([32]) highlights the imbalance where it says "Most of these martyrologists seem to count any Christian (no matter how nominal) who died under persecution (no matter the reason)." As you say, both the Britannica and the World Almanac cite from the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) but that is the argumentum ad populum given that the primary source is unbalanced as it only presents the data from the one side - again your link (Erols) highlights this when they say that "Finally, notice how these martyrmetrics use an interesting double standard. Atheism and secularism are counted as religions when they're the persecutors, but they aren't considered religions when they're the victims.". I'm all for including a figure but unless you can provide a secondary source that actually clearly attributes any deaths to atheism because of their atheism rather than their political or economic views then we can't really just cherry-pick data from such a primary source. It is also not me that is saying it is untrustworthy but your own link that you have provided us. Argue against what (Erols) claims about the source. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a secondary source.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If it just parrots a primary source that is suspect then it too is still suspect. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is null and void if you can't find a scholarly opinion to validate what your saying. You are saying Encyclopedia Britannica is NOT a valid secondary source based on passing criticism from a person not considered expert in the field and one who is not a researcher who complies the numbers that they post. You are setting a very dangerous standard. Also White himself would not support that statement the Encyclopedia Britannica is NOT a valid secondary source and as such White uses their numbers and sources them as wikipedia uses Encyclopedia Britannica is a secondary source --is not up to you or me-- if Encyclopedia Britannica is a secondary source. It is a matter of established fact. Again there are also other sources that other editors here have tried to contribute and their input has been deleted. As Kalistos Ward is an Oxford scholar and his book put out by Oxford contains peer-reviewed history and is a valid source but every time actual information from it gets post edit warring editors revert it.16:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...err it was you who provided the link in the first place !. I just commented that your link that you provided cast doubt on your own references. So you need to stop posting the criticism. This is the crux of the problem. You need to be much more clearer as to exactly what you want inserted into the article. Ideally you need to explicitly put the exact text that you wish to insert into the article under a new section in the talk page. Then we can better argue each addition in turn. For instance the links to Ware can't be trusted unless you can cite the exact information that Ware has on page 156 of that book. For instance does it use the word "laity" on page 156 ?, who exactly does Ware use as his references (it seems to be emigre writers) and do they use "militant atheists", "atheists", "Soviets" or Bolsheviks (as Ware uses on page 156) ? Ttiotsw (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ware does indeed use the word "laity" on page 156. This page is in a chapter entitled "Orthodoxy and the Militant Atheists". One would have to be very ignorant of the persecution of the religion in Russia to wonder at what the motives might have been behind it. The Soviet Union was an Atheist state. The Communist party which ran it held atheism as an obligatory dogma, and they had an extremely aggressive policy of exterminating all religion from the Soviet Union. I would encourage you to actually read up on the subject. You might also read Nathaniel Davis's, "A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy",(Oxford: Westview Press, 2003). Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to do WP:OR, I'm here to make sure that the references and content that is being added here are accurate. Ware on page 156 refers to Bolsheviks and his sources are not clear but more importantly Ware was being used to support content here that is better placed in the Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union article because the militant atheism expressed is a side effect of the particular dialectic not the cause of the Communism. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We have far better estimates of the total body count at the hands of militant atheist. Determining how many of them were killed for specifically religious reasons, as opposed to those who were killed simply to prove Dostoyevsky's statement that "If there is no God, then all things are lawful", is not so easy. The statistic I posted about the number of clergy alone who were killed is a good indication. If you look at the total number of clergy in Russia before the revolution, you will see that they killed the vast majority of them, and then started on their replacements. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have estimates at the hands of the "Soviets" or at the hands of the "Communists". I've already shown the estimates attributed to "Atheists" are suspect and so some reliable estimates at the hands of "Militant atheists" would be useful (sources please). I agree that it won't be easy with respect to your quote of Dostoyevsky because I don't think he said that at all anyway. In The Brothers Karamazov that phrase never appears and I suspect that the analysis of the rationalist views are only shallowly reflected in the misquote anyway. That said if we subscribe to the "burden" of free will then even if God did exist then everything is still permitted else we wouldn't have free will so we're no further forwards with even the sentiment of this quote. Thus the dichotomy of theism verses atheism seems to be rather irrelevant and what we have left as the motivation for the people is what I presented in the beginning and that is that it is the nationalism of the Soviets as well as the political banner waving of Communism. We have a perfectly good definition of the term (Julian Baggini) and we also have perfectly good examples of self described Militant Atheists but it misses NPOV to then poke in selected and very dubious numbers that support one POV. The numbers are no dubious because they did not happen but they are dubious as to why they happened. This article fails appallingly to highlight the intrinsic non-militant atheism of Marx and fails to compare this to the militant atheism of the Young Hegelians who are those responsible in turning Engels to militant atheism. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky wrote more than one book, but the statement in question is stated in one form or another in Crime and Punishment (less clearly), The Possessed (more clearly), and the Brothers Karamazov (repeatedly, and clearly)... as anyone who has actually read those books can attest. Sartre believed this idea was the very bedrock of his atheistic existentialist philosophy. Here are just a few of the quotes from Dostoyevsky's books that show this idea repeated over and over again:

"Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That's not all. He ended by asserting that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position. From this paradox, gentlemen, you can judge of the rest of our eccentric and paradoxical friend Ivan Fyodorovitch's theories."" The Brothers Karamazov, Ch. 11

""'Everything is lawful,' you mean? Everything is lawful, is that it?" Ivan scowled, and all at once turned strangely pale. "Ah, you've caught up yesterday's phrase, which so offended Muisov -- and which Dmitri pounced upon so naively and paraphrased!" he smiled queerly. "Yes, if you like, 'everything is lawful' since the word has been said, I won't deny it. And Mitya's version isn't bad."" The Brother Karamazov Ch. 36

"I asked him [Ivan], 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?'" Brothers Karamazov, Ch. 73

"If there is no God, then I am God." The Possessed, Ch. 6 Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue I had is that you quoted someone as saying something when they did not say this. They have been misquoted based on a synthesis of what fictional characters have said over a number of books. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Dostoyevsky was not an atheist, and so was not advocating the idea that all things are permissible because there is no God. He argued, through his novels, that this is the logical conclusion of atheism. Rather than attempt to refute that idea, clearly stated in his books, and embraced specifically by Sartre, you quibble over whether the exact words are found in his books. You do so because you cannot argue with the idea itself, because it is undeniable. We are also talking about English translations here too, some of the quotes I found with just a little bit of searching on the web come very close to the popularly cited version, and it is not impossible that in some translations, you find a text that comes even closer. But in any case, were this an article, your quibbling might be worth noting. In this discussion, it is just a red herring argument. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole argument seems very pointless to me. As I am unclear what you Ttiotsw are trying to say. So let me attempt to clarify.

1. Are you or are you not stating that Encyclopedia Britannica can not be considered a valid secondary source for this subject?
2. Are you saying that estimates of the number of victims given by accredited sources can not be used because they are estimates?
3.Are you saying that we could not simply note that the numbers given are estimates in order to use them?
Please clarify for the sake of improving the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned the link *you* provided (Erols) showed that the figures are quite suspect so you really need to address that criticism. I just think that the article is not highlighting the effect of the Young Hegelians on Engels but the problem is that we are unable to develop this article in that way because of the many attempts to unbalance the tone with content only tenuously related to actual militant atheism. Unless a references actually mentions explicitly that 'x' was done by "militant atheists" or because of "militant atheism" I don't see why we should lower our standards of oversight and accept any old link. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"No, as I mentioned the link *you* provided (Erols) showed that the figures are quite suspect so you really need to address that criticism".

This answer is nonspecific and again unclear. I made no mention of the young Hegelians and respectfully request for the sake of collaboration that you answer the questions I posted each one to the best that you can.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please start a new section which details EXACTLY what you want added to the article. Try to do this without impersonally without mentioning any Wikipedia usernames. Think of it like a diff e.g. remove "ipso factum" and replace with "flubble<ref>My troubles with tribbles, page 23</ref>. Ideally only have one diff per section. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Like this passage.

"Furthermore, those materialistic atheists who actively seek to undermine existing religions are sometimes labeled as militant atheists. During the period of communist ascendancy, militant atheism enjoyed the full apparatus of the state, making it possible to attack religion and believers by every means imaginable with impunity. This included political, social, and military attacks on believers, and suppression of religion."[33]LoveMonkey (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but the content in the http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org is derived originally from Wikipedia articles with lots of new stuff and so would be considered to be a tertiary source so it's not what we would consider a WP:RS. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I linked it because I found it to echo your Marxist, materialism comments.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We've had a problem with the World Christian Encyclopedia "figures" before: [34]. The figures are on the extreme high end of estimates of victims of specifically religious repression, and simply count anybody who died or was killed under Soviet Communism as a martyr. There is controversy over whether that is remotely legitimate, but the important point is that those figures are fringe. Mainstream historians who have written about repression in the USSR have come up with figures nowhere like that. Why were later volumes of WCE not published by the Oxford University Press?

Secondly, it is important to realise that Encyclopedia Britannica's relationship with the WCE is simply that the guy who did the latter's stats also did the EB's "review of the year" figures on religious affiliation. The EB does not in fact cite WCE's figures on "martyrdom".

To sum up: If this article has any legitimacy at all (debateable), then any figures it cites should come from from the historical consensus, not fringe sources. --Dannyno (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A way forward?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the article should contain no information on the fact that many people were killed in the name of the "militant atheist" communist/soviet state, and no one has (recently, at least) deleted this basic fact. But what has been deleted is excessive cataloguing of the evil deeds which goes far beyond what is clearly attributable to the "militant atheist" state, which brings the story to a historical point well beyond the end of anything going by the name of "militant atheism", and which is based on dubious sources. Let's mention it, but keep it in proportion to its place in this article (as opposed, for example, to Mass killings under Communist regimes), and let's also not lose sight of the other ways in which the phrase militant atheism is used. Or perhaps just turn the whole sorry mess back into a redirect to Antitheism. It's only a phrase, after all. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea to open an ANI is the best way forward. As anyone with some time on their hands can open this article history and see a pattern of abuse by you. You keep posting comments to my personal page that are unproductive and appear to me to be harassing. I am asking you now to respectfully keep your comments about this article to this articles talkpage so that there is no confusion about what you have posted that I disagree with.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. All my comments on this article are here. Any comments on your talk page and elsewhere are not about the content of this article but about editorial behaviour. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Antitheism would be a seriously retrograde step. Otherwise I think Snalwibma is basically right. And LoveMonkey - please please remember WP:CIVIL NBeale (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Beale I would love to but it will only get me mowed over by this gang of policy decimators. But you are sane and civil so I respectfully apologize and would greatly love to work with you.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere above I advocated merging this article into the handful of other articles which are about Soviet Russia and its anti-religious policies. Why not do that? --Dannyno (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, may I interrupt with a question not related to this dispute?

Sorry to disrupt the ongoing argument (which was mentioned at WP:AN/I, & led me to this article), but I'd like to make an edit which doesn't appear to touch on any topic under discussion: Would anyone object to adding a link in the "See also" section to anti-clericalism? I believe that subject is relevant to this one. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest it's probably not necessary, given that the article has a whole bunch of other relevant articles, including anti-clericalism, covered by the {{Atheism}} tag at the foot of the page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Llywrch come sit down beside me so me and you can eat some Wikipedia:HORSE together. BTW I think you should go ahead and add the link hey I can even give it multiple valid sources, see if it stop the Wikipedia:HORSE from deleting it cause as you've seen wiki policy be damn if it deviates from some editors opinions and POV on here.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

EASY

Sure, it's a derogatory label applied to Atheists who speak out about their beliefs. But beyond this, the literal breakdown of the phrase, to me, goes like this:

Militant = "competitive: showing a fighting disposition" (Source: Princeton.edu)

Atheism = Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the conviction that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. (source wikipedia)

Clearly, "Militant-Atheism" would mean someone who is a hostile atheist. However, what I think the main article fails to mention is that there is a difference between Atheism and Anti-Theism. Atheism is a BELIEF held in your mind (or in conversation, debate and literature). Anti-Theism while it's also a way of expressing a simple rejection to organized religion, it is also the active oppositional engagement with theism whether politically, economically, financially, or even physically (eg. Bible Burning). If Richard Dawkins engages in any of these forms, he's being militant but from what I've seen, he's not reached past discussion and public donations to scientific institutions. But hey, the militant-THEISTS guest list would, in my guess, be much longer simply due to the fact there are less Atheists in the world but there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia page for Militant-Theist.

This whole article, in my opinion, attempts to smear other Atheists as if their being an Atheist had anything to do with religion or theism, when clearly ATHEISM is about [the lack of belief in] God... not a man-made theism. God and Religion are two separate things. Start there and the rest is easy. If you reject theism, you are a non-theist. If you don't believe in the existence of a deity, then you are an Atheist.

Militant-Atheism IS Anti-Theism. But it's just inappropriate labeling and to be honest, slightly hurtful to the average atheist. It would be similar to me (an American) calling every person who was born south of the United States a "Mexican" just because their skin is brown. This whole page is a disambiguation and, to me, it's not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsText (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 916 ghits for "militant theist" and 89k for "militant atheist". NBeale (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Top line numbers for Google hits don't actually mean anything. See WP:GOOGLE, and more specifically, the sources cited. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

May be it is a derogatory label in some contexts, but in the context of Communism, used by Communists, it was a label of pride. In fact, the whole idea of Communism is militant. There is no peaceful ways of transition from capitalism to communism in theoretical Communism. ItsText, I would suggest you not to do originsl resesrch trying to derive gthe meaning of the term "militant atheism" from the meanings of the separate words. In fact from the introduction of the term and until the demise of the Soviet Union the term "militant atheism" meant the active, propagating, "crusading" (pardon my oxymoron) atheism, which fiercely fights religion, rather than passive atheism, kinda, "uhm... there are no Gods. Are you saying there are? Well, good for you, I don't care." For example, Leo Taxil was a prominent case of fiercely militant atheist (wikipedia article sucks, but still you can see this). - Altenmann >t 06:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. i.e. God-Building and Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those articles highlight the outcomes of Lenin's process of Secularization that was used by the Bolsheviks. They are examples of antireligion, not even antitheism. How are they relevant here ?. It also does not follow that Léo Taxil's anti-Catholic and anti-clerical views means that he is a Militant atheist. Why can't he just be anti-Catholic and anti-clerical ? Ttiotsw (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This above tactics is one that has repeatedly been used to try to deny the obvious. This is unacceptable hairsplitting and a criteria no article could live up to as it is a fallacy (i.e. argument from silence). One, it denies that militant atheists would engage in antireligious, anticlerical and antitheism behavior (why is that?). Two it insists that these ideas are distinct, different and share no commonality and are separate and have no relation. Three, it implies that by insisting that the concepts are different separate and share no common ground then unless data and sourcing meet this strict and narrow criteria of being word exactly how this editor wants(who is not basing this criteria on wikipedia policy) then this editor by their criteria, not wikipedias, will continue to not allow any of the datas inclusion.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess, Ttiotsw knowns about Leo Taxil only from wikipedia article, which sucks. Yes he was famous anti-Catholic, but he had ho particular incentive to fight, say, Orthodox Church or Jainism. Unlike wikipedians, he dealt with things he knew and of immediate involvement :-). Of course, a person may be anti-Cahtolic, but not atheist. But Taxil was quite a piece of atheist. - Altenmann >t 23:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Second suggestion: article structure

After reading this talk page and the article itself, here is another thing to be done: the article must clearly distinguish two usages of the term: the usage in its direct meaning, and the pejorative usage. First of all, the intro definition must not contain any judgements (pejorative or not), just a definition. The second sentence must address the two aspects of the usage, with refernces (from scholarly treatments of thye subject, not just quotations of the usage). Accordingly, there must be two major sections devoted to the two meanings, each of them may have their own structure: history, per country,etc.

Rationale: the word "communist" may be used in these two meanings in exactly the same way: communists use it with pride, while their opponents insult each other by calling each other "communists" due to minor shift in left-right-wingedness. Nevertheless, we don't write in the intro of "communism" that the main meaning of the word "communist" is pejorative, despite the fact that the "mainstream usage" is pejorative: I bet there is ratio of 1000:1 for non-communists:communists.

In addition, the coatrack section must be treated similarly to WP:TRIVIA rules. Significant cases must be insorporated into smooth text. Trivial utterances, like, "John Doe called Jane Nobody militant atheistess", must go: they add nothing to understanding of the concept, unless these facts are used in scholarly sources as an illustration of some details of the topic. - Altenmann >t 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh sanity... Couldn't agree more. Help me to add some of the historical events to the article by clarifying how you think that this type of information here should be included.[35] I would like to include specific examples of churches destroyed and or converted to "other" uses due to their original intent not being compatible with the ideology of the militant atheist. Many also including first person examples that are not Orthodox like Aleksandras Stulginskis.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points, and the analogy with communist is very good. My main concern is that it may be difficult to come up with a neutral definition for the first sentence, but I very much support the overall structure you propose. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. An elaboration on the pejorative side of this term while still keeping the information about the groups labeling themselves "militant atheists" sounds like a good compromise, which hopefully would be agreeable to both sides in this discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "perjorative" bit should not be in the lead. But I have always struggled to see in what sense there are 2 different meanings to the term. For people who think M.A. is a good thing, it is a badge of honor, for others it is wrong and shameful. Perhaps a bit like "capitalist" or "Abortionist" or even "American". NBeale (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Hmmm. There are surely different connotations, and the precise words used in the neutral definition may slant things one way or the other – that's the problem as I see it, but I'm sure it's not insurmountable. I assume you mean the "pejorative" idea should not be in the lead sentence, rather than that it should not be in the lead paragraph/section. Perhaps we should rough out some possible wordings. I wonder whether the lead sentences of this version or this one (both from almost three years ago) might have something to offer. Here is a suggested revised opening (stripped of references and wikilinks), plus an outline of the way the article could be structured:

The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are used to describe those who actively and/or outspokenly campaign for atheism and against religion. The terms have a history going back to at least 1894 and have been applied to people from Thomas Hobbes onwards. The regime of the Soviet Union in the early twentieth century described itself as a militant atheist regime. Today militant atheist is used (generally pejoratively) to describe some prominent atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. In response to this, it is also sometimes adopted as a "badge of honour" by some atheists.

then the Baggini paragraph, to end the lead section (or would this be better in section 2, below?)

then three main sections in the body of the article:

Soviet Union, with suitable links to other articles discussing the numbers killed, the churches destroyed, etc (but minimal details here, so as not to unbalance this article and duplicate others).
Modern use of the term to describe (can we say "attack"?) Dawkins et al.
Adoption by atheists as badge of honour.

I have included the "pejorative" comment in the lead because I think it helps to make sense of the counter-use of the term as a badge of honour. Any comments? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Our current list of "Examples" highlights the problem with the article. There should be a section before the Soviet Union (which was formed quite late on in the piece in 1922 after all) which captures the militant atheists of the Enlightenment. Then follows the related Dialectic such as materialism which mentions Marxism and then Leninism with the Bolsheviks and then the Soviets. This would allow us to bring the "Examples" out of the list and into the main body of text. Any examples of "other articles discussing the numbers killed, the churches destroyed, etc " must very clear that the cause is militant atheism not just some drunk Bolshevik on a bender. Few examples to date have been very clear on this. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)