Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RFC closed, building the db

The RFC was closed as split supported, so we should probably put together a list for what will go on the db page as well as a single line introducing the page, something along the lines of "Militant Atheism is a term with multiple historical and modern uses and may apply to the following:" After we get a few for the list we should probably convert to a db quickly and start merging/writing the new articles. N^oformation ^Talk 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I supported splitting the information, but I'm not sure a DAB is appropriate, since it seems we've only got two options - state-style and modern-style. Personally I'd prefer Militant atheism redirect to State atheism with a hatnote to the effect 'Militant atheism redirects here. For the modern form of atheism sometimes called 'militant', see New atheism', but there's certainly no consensus for that. So the question is, can a DAB exist with only two options? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea either and I'd probably vote for it, though I saw some very specific article names get thrown out on this talk page. I'm not sure it's that big of a deal how we do this, but what ever it is, we should get on it. It'd be really nice not to get into a ridiculous protracted argument about it like what's been happening. N^oformation ^Talk 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest DAB page. If there is no 'Militant atheism' page, it would be just matter of time before someone creates another page like the current one. Abhishikt (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the page would remain, either as a redirect or a dab. aprock (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I thin we should make the DAB page we talked about. We may have to change it later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A dab seems appropriate, given the opinions expressed above. It seems we can either quickly discuss which content should go where, or someone can just boldly hop in and move all the appropriate content. I'll hop on the latter if I get some time, but it might be best if someone more immediately available jumps in instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to have a two option dab style page, with a brief (one sentence) clarification of "state atheism" or, at least, explaining that its application to "new atheists" is normally by their critics. The content will need to be effectively split and merged into those articles, as it would be a shame to lose a lot of it. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to write a crappy version of the DAB page, because I thought no one else would. But, it turns out the page is locked. Please unlock it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested at RfPP. Should be taken care of shortly. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is now unlocked. To everybody here: please note that this is not an invitation to edit the content to what you see fitting. Instead, convert it to something along the lines of consensus and what was discussed above (for example, a disambiguation page). Also, congratulations to everyone for making it through a content dispute without too much bloodshed. I'll be around if you need me. Cheers, m.o.p 05:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there could still be an article similar to what BD2412 suggested earlier, including the content from the section Militant atheism#Today (and also from the criticism sections). But in my opinion, there should also be an article about the historical ideology of "Militant Atheism", including the content from Militant atheism#Application (And there are enough sources stating that there was an ideology or doctrine called "Militant Atheism".) And I see no problem with providing the readers with articles containing more detailed information about the uses of "Militant Atheism". Cody7777777 (talk)

Consensus is pretty solidly against that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Until someone comes up with a mainstream secondary source dealing directly and extensively with the "history of militant atheism", I suspect consensus will not change. aprock (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think that there is a strong consensus against, in effect, recreating the flawed aspects of this page in a different form. My advice for the DAB is to make it very minimalist, so as not to slip into it the same problems again. Basically, an introductory sentence like "Militant atheism may refer to the following:". Then list State atheism first and New Atheism second, without explanatory text. Leave the explanation to the pages themselves.

And I want to add a big "thank you!" to Master of Puppets for guiding this protracted debate through to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) m.o.p 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to someone forming a replacement disambiguation page. If I were not house hunting today I would dig into the task myself. I like Tryptofish's bare bones idea but if I were writing the dab, I would probably give it a little more explanatory prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is any need to move material from this page to another page as part of the disambiguation process, consider moving the entire thing to project space without a redirect and tagging it as obsolete, then building the dab on the empty space left behind. Also, note that a dab page is supposed to be as bare bones as possible. One blue link per line, with lines having the minimum amount of information necessary to direct readers to the article they were looking for. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, "militant atheism" might refer to the presence of atheism in an otherwise secular military. I would recommend including a link to Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, and perhaps to There are no atheists in foxholes, which discusses the proposition that atheism does not exist among military personnel enduring threats to life and limb. Cheers again! bd2412 T 16:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also a League of Militant Atheists, of which a member would presumably be called a "Militant Atheist". bd2412 T 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism in the military is not the same thing as militant atheism.--Charles (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and more importantly no one uses the term "militant atheism" to describe atheism in the military. I've removed it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's looking good. I made some further edits; please feel free to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure I really like this one. That wording is ambiguous about what "a less accommodating attitude" means, and as we're dealing with a label of "militant", I think we need to be careful to be explicit. I also don't think that's a very common way of describing New Atheism, and since we don't have a source, I think using problematic wording like that may not be the best option. Then again, this is only a disambig page, so perhaps sourcing isn't a huge concern. Maybe we could try something like "a belief that religion should be countered and criticized by rational argument". That's basically rephrasing the first sentence of the New Atheism article. Thoughts?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's between paraphrasing the opening sentence and paraphrasing the closing sentence of the lead. I wasn't trying to be problematic, but I thought it would be clearer why the link was listed on this DAB page. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate all of the descriptive language for all three listings. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I wasn't saying you were being problematic :) My contention is only that I think we should be explicit that New Atheism is about discourse, not about violence; the other articles on this page typically manifest violently, and our title implies it, so just saying "a less accommodating attitude" may be giving the wrong impression.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I understood that, thanks. If we don't just delete all the descriptions (my first choice), I think it would be useful to identify the time period for New Atheism, and I also think that there are numerous other forms of irreligion that could also be defined as believing that religion should be countered by rational argument, so that really isn't a good definition. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully sold on removing the descriptions altogether, I think we just need to nail down a good one-line description of each. You're right about other forms of irreligion, and I think adding a time period would help. The New Atheism article specifies 2004 to 2007. Perhaps we could say "a recent belief", or "a movement begun in 2004"? Does anyone else have a suggestion for phrasing that would improve upon the three options we have now?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, Trypto. Thanks! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DAB

Militant atheism may refer to:

• State atheism, where a government promotes atheism.

• New atheism, the belief that religion should be countered by rational argument.

Maybe something like this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Works for me.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to my user space, here, and implemented this dab page (with suggestions from other editors in the section above). Please feel free to expand on it, make changes, etc. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just 'cause I'm a bit odd about grammar, I think the first link in the DAB should read, "State atheism, a government's official promotion of atheism" instead of beginning the clause with a place reference (where). One could also replace the where with in which, but that reads even worse. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you (about the edit, not that you are odd!). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Incoming redirects

I am dubious about the remaining incoming redirects from titles such as Fundamentalist Atheism and Militant materialism. Of these, only Militant atheist clearly needs to redirect here. The rest should probably redirect to New Atheism. bd2412 T 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right to be dubious about them coming here. But I don't agree with them going to New Atheism, which I think would be even less apt. Maybe they should be deleted? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Of all the available targets, State atheism and the specific Militant Atheist group are clearly wrong. Redirects are cheap, and their purpose is not to make a point, but to bring readers to the article for which they were most likely searching. With the links at issue, that article is likely to be New Atheism, possibly antitheism. bd2412 T 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty hard to know what a reader would really be looking for if they were using those phrases to look. New Atheism is, I think, a stretch. I'd be inclined to have the terms related to materialism go to Materialism instead, and have fundamental atheism either go to Atheism or stay here at the DAB page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that all of the redirects are empty. You might consider PROD'ing them, or leave them be. aprock (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "empty"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It means that they have no incoming links from other pages. Whether they are empty or not has no bearing on whether someone might search for them. I think they should exist but should point elsewhere; leaving them be would be erroneous in my view because I think it unlikely that someone searching for any of these could intend to get to State atheism or the specific group. I'm fine with the atheism titles redirecting to atheism and the materialism title redirecting to materialism. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's do it that way then. (By the way, Aprock, one can't WP:PROD redirects.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for the tip. aprock (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I made that change. I would also note, however, that Atheism makes no mention of "atheist fundamentalism" in its text, and I'm dubious that these terms will really ever be searched anyway, given its lack of prevalence in the literature. The redirects seem to have been created back when this page was using "atheist fundamentalist" as a synonym for "militant atheist", but that term was removed months ago. With all that in mind, I certainly wouldn't object to deleting the redirects if someone else felt that was appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

People will search for "atheist fundamentalist" and "fundamentalist atheism" and when they do it will be because they came across a usage synonymous with the pejorative usage of "militant atheism" applied to some of the New Atheists. My suggestion would be to create a criticism section at New Atheism where any of the usable stuff from this entry related to New Atheism can go and then redirect the "fundamentalism" terms to that section of that entry.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See the subtitle of The Dawkins Delusion? for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for doing it. Well, there is WP:RFD, but come to think of it I guess a case can be made that keeping the redirects makes it a little less likely that someone will try to create a new article on the coatrack subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, yes, that's another approach I hadn't thought of. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a better idea than my suggestion. We should have enough content here to at least get a start on something at New Atheism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism article finds his home

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=922868 Regards --В и к и T 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Page has been converted to a disambiguation page, thus this point is moot.

I am offering a revision of the current introduction, which addresses the major concerns that have been offered by several users, including the degree to which militant atheism holds religion to be harmful as well as the issue of the New Atheist writers not advocating violence against believers, which many have keen on including in the article. Moreover, it meets WP:LEDE by summarizing the major sections of the article, which was not the case in the version listed above. I hope this version can be seen as a good faith compromise that will gain favor from both parties as it also meets WP:RS and WP:V. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this version. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Historically, the main usage of the term refers to the doctrine advocating the propagation of atheism among the masses, as well as the combating of religion as a harmful aberration, which was often undertaken by atheist states. This application of the term was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,

and significant in the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The term militant atheist has also been applied to various political thinkers. Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger (writers often identified as New Atheists), who argue against religion and for the spread of atheism, but do not advocate violence against religious believers.

The appellation has also been criticized by some activists, such as Dave Niose, who feel that the term is used indiscriminately for "an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God."

References

---

• Support I support this introduction per the argument listed above. It meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEDE and moreover, is not a synthesis of ideas. It also gives due weight to the material presented in the article, summarizing each section of the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I notice the dispute above, saw the article on Facebook, and I believe this is the best introduction to the article. I am a religious person and I support it. As an Orthodox Jew, I know people who personally suffered from this persecution. I believe this has great relevance to my community. I was also impressed by the number of sources and believe it is good research.Jwaxman1 (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaxman1 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not ready yet. The proposed lead is okay in its first half, though it needs the word the before the word "Great". The bigger problem is the second half, which I think should be another paragraph. The date 1894 should be inserted into the first half, and the modern use of the term defined clearly in the second half but in general terms, without specific reference to Niose, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Stenger. I include Niose in the people who do not need to be namechecked in the lead because Niose only restates the modern use of the term; he does not give a unique definition. Also, the lead section does not need to be referenced because it is ideally a summary of referenced text in the body. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Binksternet, thanks for your comment. If the names are the issue with this revision, I will be happy to compromise further, if other editors also feel the same way. What is the alternative you have to listing the New Atheist writers explicitly? I also have no objection to removing mention of David Niose if other editors feel that that would be helpful. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The intro by Anupam is clear and concise and well referenced.ClassArm (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - see below: A few points about above proposals:--JimWae (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Still Oppose This matter cannot be settled simply by a vote. There has been no attempt to accommodate the very reasonable objections to this proposal by providing alternate wording. This discussion has been dormant for weeks at a time, yet it keeps getting moved to the bottom as if it were the only place to discuss the article, and people are repeatedly told that the "proper" place to discuss is within a vote on a proposal that is already 4 weeks old and has had many objections raised against it.--JimWae (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:JimWae, several users have actually tried to discuss your views with you but you have never responded to their replies. For example, you never replied to Cody7777777's answer to your concern. The fact is that issues have been addressed but you have not responded when users entertained your concerns. Instead, you made unilateral changes without gaining consensus, in violation of the reviewing administrator's injunction: "please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes." If you have any concerns with this version, please share them here. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• actually, I have responded several times to several people's concerns - but who could find it after you keep re-arranging the talk page every few days--JimWae (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually this discussion was moved here in order to allow other editors to comment on it because many were not aware that a discussion on the Introduction was taking place. Moreover, you never replied to User:Cody7777777, who demonstrated that terminology "propagate" is supported by several sources. I would encourage you to address those issues, because if not, then your point remains refuted. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There cannot be a very fruitful discussion buried out of sequence within the context of a "vote". It is time to have a new section with a new proposal that accommodates at least some of the objections raised to Anupam's of 4 weeks ago. I cannot formulate such a proposal. I do not consider this an important article and I do not think it will ever become a good article, since it is about a term. There has already been more philological research on the history of the term done by editors of this article than there is in most books on the subject. In my view, most of the material on state atheism should be merged to their separate articles and this page should only be about 15% of its current length. I will not become complicit in an article about a term with so wild a scope as this. All I can do is propose less objectional wordings, some of which you have already accepted. Let's not have this discussion have the same result as the last one -- after it was closed, the article was reverted to a state that the discussion had already moved beyond, including undoing typos that had previously been corrected. Let me also briefly say, AS I HAVE ALREADY *somewhere* above or below this section (who knows where it will end up tomorrow?), and likely more than once, that it is a misreading of what I wrote to say I objected to "propagate". I objected to limiting the propagation to "the masses" - the propagation was for everyone, and talk of the "masses" just invites class warfare terminology. SUM: There needs to be a place to discuss this besides buried inside this 4-week old vote that keeps getting moved around. --JimWae (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't bothered to engage editors who have responded to your concerns. In fact, User:Cody7777777's lengthy response to your concerns still goes unresponded. Instead, you unilaterally interject unreferenced information into the article without providing references. In fact, you state that the reliable sources are "plain wrong", which violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact of the matter is that many other editors find this version to be a good compromise and you may have to accept this collaborative spirit, as I, and others have done. Moreover, this RfC is not closed, and will remain open to allow others to comment as it has gained many comments thus far. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• You tone is hostile and you are totally misreading (or not reading at all) what I say. I try to offer a way out of this stalemate & you present foolish retorts instead of considering any merit to what I say. I will not dignify your response with any further comment. --JimWae (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded rude; I wish to be amiable to you. You are more than welcome to discuss any concerns you have with this revision here. I (and hopefully other editors) will try to address your concerns here. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well-worded, well-referenced, relevant to the reader. I would also support Binksternet's revision (see below), if consensus leans that way. Turnsalso (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Initially hesitant, but after letting it sink in I think it is an improvement, and it addresses the POV concerns previously expressed.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The new version does some improvements to the current. Binksternet's version can also be acceptable for me (but the part about the term's first use in 1894 should be revised, since earlier usage has been shown).Cody7777777 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I liked the original but in the spirit of co-operation I hope this one is broad enough. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced compromise. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is an improvement on the present version, but it still needs to be much more circumspect in saying that "militant atheism" is a term applied to those whose attitude is perceived to be ... [etc.] It is still guilty of using a sweeping synthesis to construct a phantom THING out of a mere coincidence of terminology across a wide range of different contexts and with a wide range of different meanings. That complexity, and that range of meanings, cannot fairly be telescoped into a single definition that happens to suit a few Wikipedia editors. Also - what's with all the footnotes? There is far more text in the footnotes (all those quotations) than in the main text. Making the reader jump up and down from text to footnote and back is very poor writing. If it's worth including, it belongs in the text proper. If it's not worth including in the main text, it does not mmerit a place in the footnotes. Reduce all the footnotes to references only, no quotes. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion, User:Snalwibma. However, I must respectfully disagree. The statement discussing the concept is supported by several sources; in addition, the subsequent sentences distinguish between the usage of the term, which was the issue in question. The fact that there is a large amount of references supporting the statements in the introduction demonstrates the fact that it is not a synthesis, but is verified by reliable sources. The introduction also parallels the structure of the article, namely the concept, as defined by several philosophers, and then its application. Moreover, I strongly object to removing the quotes from the references, and this has been discussed in the past. Without the quotes, editors would be removing information from the article left and right as this is a controversial article. The quotes ensure that the information in the article is verifiable and is not original research or synthesis. This made it easy for User:Peterstrempel to perform his Word Razor. Since he was unsure of the content of the article, he could look at the quotes and ensure that every reference that was used, discussed militant atheism, and used that specific terminology, not anything else. As such, if any reader challenges a statement, he/she may simply check the reference, which will provide the original text, ensuring that the article meets WP:NPOV. I will wait for more editors to come and evaluate the proposed introduction. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the wrong question, because like others have already said it still violates WP:SYNTH. We need to revisit the idea of splitting the article content up and probably merging it into already existing entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That question has already been asked, and answered: we're not splitting the article. You can challenge the process all you want. You have no argument. You have no consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SYNTH and Griswaldo(above), Snalwibma(above), Peterstrempel[1], JimWae[2], Fubar Obfusco[3], et al. See Rolf Schmidt for strawmen. Time for a wide RfC on this puppy. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see, this is not really a WP:SYNTH issue, since the proposed lead introduction does not claim that there was a connection between "new atheists" and state militant atheists, it just documents the obvious fact that it has been applied by sources to both groups. And there are sources which speak about both, like the following "...tyrants who have acted in behalf of militant atheism, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.(page 30)...a militant atheist like Dawkins(page 38)." (this does not claim that there was a direct connection between them, but it identifies both as "militant atheists"). But nonetheless, the discussion about splitting should not be repeated too soon after the previous debate (and it will probably just waste more time, that could be used for better things). Cody7777777 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment re: closing discussion This proposed intro has extremely persuasive argumements in support and overwheling support in terms of !voting. I see no reason to further delay incorporating the new intro into the article per consensus.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This whole article reads to me like what one would get by googling "militant atheism" and throwing together the results. As far as the parts related to contemporary discussions of atheism are concerned, they are in fact based on extraordinarily slim scholarly sources, and what sources there are are being used to buttress the article rather than the other way round. In my opinion this article makes about as much sense as one entitled, say, "Intolerant Atheism" and I don't think any rewrite of the type proposed will fix it. Regards to all.Jkhwiki (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose To be honest, regardless of the actual lead content, it still reads like crap. Because of the tortured prose and unreadability, no casual reader would bother getting past the lead anyway. Also see Talk:Militant_atheism#Dear_Anupam comments from User:Peterstrempel. The article still looks like POV pushing. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• RfC comment. I'm not sure what I think about the wording of the lead, and I'm not watchlisting this page, just responding to the multiple RfCs that have popped up. I found it very informative, however, to read through the reference list that is provided just above. I see plenty of reliable sources using the term "militant atheism" to describe what is sometimes also categorized as state atheism. And I also see plenty that use it to refer to the New Atheists. But I've read carefully through every quote in every citation given, and not one of them does both of those things. I don't see any sources here that treat the two broad categories described in the lead as being parts of the same thing. And that's a problem with this page. The last time there was an RfC here to which I responded, some of us pointed out the need for sourcing that would take this page out of WP:COATRACK territory. Time has passed, and I come back here to find that still lacking. There will continue to be concerns about WP:NPOV, and yes, WP:SYNTH, so long as the page can be construed as equating Dawkins, for example, with Stalin, for example. Based on the references offered, I'm not sold on the argument that this page is about one subject, just because there's a phrase that is used in two different contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Jkhwiki that the fundamental concept of this article is flawed. 'Militant atheist' is something that people accuse other people of, and it seems to have a different meaning depending on the situation and who's saying it. It is not a movement or a theory. It's a description or an accusation. It will be very difficult to achieve consensus on the exact meaning of what is essentially a vague turn of phrase. - JRheic (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because it can mean multiple things doesn't mean the term is inherently vague. Atheism can mean multiple things, but it, too, can be well-defined. This intro sentence defines the different meanings well. Geremia (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

""Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion" does not define two meanings. It is not even in the form of a definition for one meaning. It is like calling a flower pretty, and then going on to say other pretty things are also flowers.--JimWae (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support It succinctly defines and distinguishes the different applications of the same concept "Militant Antheism" (historical, current, applied to political thinkers, what opponents to the terminology think it means [thus supporting WP:NPOV ], etc.) and shows how they relate to each another. It obeys WP:V with its many good sources, too. Thus, it is a good summary/intro paragraph and should be kept. Geremia (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unless it is clear that the term is one that is predominantly used by theists to disparage atheists, I don't see how the lede can be neutral. The obvious synthesis with respect to Marxism/Leninism needs to go. aprock (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: First sentence is still the same: Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. It's not neutral, and needs to be changed. You must attribute every controversial claim to reliable source.--В и к и T 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please check this section, where it was also discussed why it is not a neutrality issue with that sentence. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The excessive use of the passive voice leaves out essential information. Specifically, who is this term applied by? If this is indeed a neutral recounting of the discourse about the phrase, and not some other unencyclopedic pursuit, then this information would be present in the lede.
• Oppose: Clearly POV OR and SYNTH not based on any sources except polemics, which are not acceptable sources per WP:RS. Bad-faith conflation of various uses of the term "militant atheism" to advance a political/religious objective. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that the language in the first sentence is not sufficiently neutral, although I don't think it needs to be sourced. How about something like "...is unfavorably disposed toward religion"? Something along that line has less POV.--Miniapolis (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Including New Atheism

There seems to be evidence that some distinguish and some equate new atheism with militant atheism. Since this page is about helping people find articles based on usage, it seems reasonable to include new atheism with a disclaimer. See Ian Hutchinson (equating new atheism with militant atheism) and Paul Kurtz (distinguishing new atheism from militant atheism). I don't think there is an attempt to portray a POV here, but rather an attempt to inform. Supposing I read something or heard someone called a believer something "Militant atheism", I search wikipedia - I think it would be helpful to know what new atheism is and read that article. Especially if they are obviously not referring to state atheism or Russia --Trödel 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC) PS - I found these from this search

I agree. I think the solution is to note somewhere in the New Atheism article that detractors label the position "militant atheism", citing this proposition to reliable sources, and include a similar2 (UTC)

Please scroll up to near the top of this talk page, where such sources were discussed when the page was not yet a DAB. I think the approach we are now considering is the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In that it is a moniker and not a movement, it is seems the comparison to ethnic slurs is misguided. Militant capitalists would be a comparable example. Additionally, you are interpreting the word militant as being "engaged in warfare or conflict", however that is not the only definition of the word. Militan statement here. bd2412 T 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. I like the edit that clarifies the wording to indicate that the term is typically applied to New Atheism by its critics. As the closed discussion above indicates, this was a hot topic of editorial debate in the past. It's worth looking back at some history of this page. Circa September 2011, the page was an article, and it was changed to a disambiguation page as a result of that discussion. As an article, there was consensus that it violated editorial policy to treat New Atheism and State Atheism as being parts of the same thing. However, there was also consensus that there are a lot of primary sources that call New Atheism "militant". Thus, this DAB page can lead readers who are looking for various usages of the term to the pages that deal with what those readers are looking for. Consequently, there is no need to purge all mention of New Atheism from this page (nor any need to edit war over it). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Trödel, thanks for starting the discussion here. There are some serious problems here. The term "militant atheism" is a derogatory slur as applied to Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc. It is complete unfounded, absurdist, and a misapplication of language. None of these people has ever endorsed a militant position against religion. They simply advocate against religion peacefully, except in cases where that religion is itself militant and dangerous, which all mainstream political and ideological factions in the Western world do as well. We don't talk about militant Baptism or militant Obamaism, even though Obama talked for years openly and explicitly about "killing" Osama Bin Laden, and then did so. Some discussion of the accusations of "militant atheism" may be warranted in the New Atheism article, but we have to be really careful on this disambiguation page. Furthermore, "New Atheism" itself isn't even a movement, as you have written in your last edit, but merely a moniker. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11, why do you object when it is identified as a term used by critics? As it happens, I agree with your characterization of the term, but that doesn't change the facts that there are reliably-sourced critics who use the term in just that derogatory way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We can find reliable sourced authors who refer to African Americans as monkeys. Does that mean we should have a hatnote or disambiguation page to service that usage? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good answer, ouch! It seems to me that there is a matter of degree in the difference between "militant" and "monkey", but I acknowledge that we're in subjective territory here. Is there an acceptable way of including this use of militant, while also qualifying it appropriately? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If List of ethnic slurs included sourced information indicating that "monkeys" is such an epithet used with respect to African Americans, then it would be entirely appropriate to add an entry at Monkey (disambiguation) linking to the list and indicating the kind of usage referenced. Wikipedia is not censored in any sense to preserve people's feelings about how other groups refer to their own. For example, the disambiguation page Mick contains an entry for: "a Roman Catholic of Irish descent; considered extremely pejorative". bd2412 T 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BD2412, good points. But until we have sourced information at New Atheism or elsewhere about the derogatory use of "militant" to describe certain people who are atheist and not militant, then I don't see the justification for including the item here. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 201t also means, "aggressively active (as in a cause)"[4]. It seems if we properly identify it as a term used by critics it is properly covered. I would also agree with the notes above that it is notable that critics refer to it that way and should be included in the new atheism article; however, I don't see that as being a prerequisite to referencing new atheism on this disamb page --Trödel 01:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have consensus, again, for inclusion, maybe Jweiss will stop his edit warring. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Lionelt, Conservapedia just called looking for you...again. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Jweiss11, thanks for your willingness to contribute the article. I would recommend that you examine the plethora of references available in New Atheism section of the article before the RfC was held to split the content. The term is not used exclusively in a pejorative manner (in fact, stating so is misleading because the League of Militant Atheists used the term as the official name of their organisation), but has been used in academic journals to reference the New Atheists. I am reverting to the original consensus version of the article, as determined by the latest RfC. If you dispute the consensus, please continue discussing here in order to gain a new one. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "militant atheism" with respect to "New Atheism" is by definition pejorative and defamatory since there is zero evidence of any call for militant action in support of atheism by anyone associated with "New Atheism". To simply list the terms as synonyms on this disambiguation page is analogous to simply listing "monkey" as a synonym for "African American". Jweiss11 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, I would encourage you to read academic papers and various news outlets which refer to the New Atheists as militant atheists, which is available here. Furthermore, I would encourage you to gain consensus before reinstating your changes. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[←] I am uneasy about the inclusion of that note referring to New Atheism. Two issues: (1) The article on New Atheism does not include the term "militant" anywhere within it, so where is the basis for the claim that the term "militant atheism" is applied to the New Atheists? I want to see a reliable source, either here or there. (2) If we are going to list things/movements/people to whom the label "militant atheist" has been applied, why stop there? Go on - add a list starting with Dawkins and going on through Hitchens, Clive Bone and the High Court of Justice - all of them have been (or might have been) called "militant atheists". Are we not heading down the sorry route of using this Wikipedia article as an attack piece (again)? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with SNALWIBMA; get rid of the link. We had to fight long and hard to fix an article which was full of OR and synthesis, which linked these two separate concepts together (along with some other problematic synthesis); I'm glad that they're separate now, and we should keep them separate. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC was held this past fall which discussed whether the content of this article should be split and this page being made into a disambiguation page. However, no one ever ended up moving the content to its appropriate place. As such, I followed through with the RfC and moved the relevant content to the New Atheism article, which now discusses its criticism as militant atheism. I may work on moving the other leftover content from this article to the state atheism article at a later time. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to New Atheism being included here if we have strong reliable sources backing the connection up. I'm not sure that "militant atheism" needs to be mentioned in the New Atheism article before we do that. This is only a disambig page, so we should link readers where they may want to go, even if a mention of "militant atheism" isn't notable enough for the New Atheism article. With that said, I don't see any strong reliable sources drawing the connection. I see one from BioLogos, which was strongly objected to before the RfC, both here and on RSN; we had removed it completely from the article before the last RfC due to those concerns. The second source only discusses differences between New Atheism and Militant Atheism, so a no go there too. The link to a google search may have been helpful, but the top results are about.com, biologos, conservapedia, youtube, and tripod.com. Does anyone have an actually reliable (ideally secondary) source for this connection? An encyclopedia, or book, or anywhere this is discussed academically?

@Anupam, I saw that. You copied a huge chunk of this article into New Atheism. I don't believe the RfC called for that, and it introduced a huge number of problems; I reverted it. I don't know that anything from this article belongs in that one, largely in part because the big objection many editors had (which led to this disambig page) was that the connection between topics was poor, and there were a plethora of synthesis issues to compensate for that. If we move anything over, you should discuss the content first on Talk:New Atheism so we can decide which content is appropriate. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the edits of the last 24 hours or so have changed my mind. You can see what I now think at the AfD for this page, where I now support deletion/redirection. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Atheism (disambiguation)

This page (and the edit war) is being discussed elsewhere on-site. User:Mathsci proposed in one of the threads that the naming of the article is causing the dispute, rather than the content. He suggested the page be named Atheism (disambiguation), and that Militant atheism be a redirect to that disambig page. I think that's a good suggestion, and it seems it would entirely eliminate this dispute. Are there any objections/comments to that proposal?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, given the AfD just posted, I'm going to be very bold and perform the move now. If there are objections, I'm happy to discuss them, but I don't forsee this being contentious. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Excellent solution. That gets rid of the POV and BLP problems altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess we dont need the Atheism (disambiguation) page now. Abhishikt (talk)

Agreed. We do not. bd2412 T 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I already took care of it. Fastily deleted my page after my speedy nom. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to New Atheism

This page should not have redirected to the League of Militant Atheists, a specific organization in a specific country. Militant atheism is far more widely applicable than to this single entity. Further, associating modern militant atheism, which is nothing more than New Atheism, with the Soviet Union can send the wrong message to believers or others who oppose atheists. I suggest keeping this redirect or making Militant Atheism a disambiguation page, offering New Atheism, Antitheism, the League of Militant Atheists. and perhaps other pages as links.

Seconding the suggestion above (though not all of the reasoning). When someone searches for "militant atheism" they are not going to want anything about soviet politics. We want to be told about the recent usage of the term meaning, roughly, an aggressive anti-religious position paralleled (unfairly IMO) with religious fundamentalism. A disambiguation page would suffice. Syneil (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested Redirect

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Oppose move. Snow close/proposer withdrew prior to 7 day listing. Consensus appears to be against redirecting the page to New Atheism, and generally supportive of keeping the current redirect. (non-admin closure)   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Militant atheism → New Atheism – Inappropriate redirect. Lagoy (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if I filed this right. I'm new at this. But I believe it is inappropriate and biased to redirect the page "Militant Atheism," a page with a title about a general concept, to a specific organization in Soviet Russia (i.e., the League of Militant Atheists). That has the potential to put militant atheists in a bad light, given the crimes of the Soviet Union. The Soviet League of Militant Atheists is fundamentally irrelevant to modern militant atheists. A more appropriate redirect is to the page New Atheism, since that's what militant atheism actually is. Lagoy (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not a good idea.This page was previously an essay about "militant atheism" which criticised "new atheism" through extensive misuse of sources, synthesis, original research, sockpuppetry &c. The community finally prevailed and got rid of it. Militant atheism and new atheism are not the same thing; although readers of conservapedia may be forgiven for thinking otherwise as a copy of the essay is still there. Redirecting this page to that target is restoring the original problem, in part. We already discussed this redirect. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons this redirect was done away with in the first place. bd2412 T 14:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So it's best to keep a biased and inappropriate redirect? Why not just delete the page? Or, create a disambiguation page linking to antitheism, new atheism, and this Soviet organization? Not understanding the "logic" here. As a militant atheist, from my perspective and everyone I've ever met, "militant atheism" when used by atheists is new atheism. Richard Dawkins also uses "militant atheism" in this regard. (Lagoy (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC))
    • Color me doubtful that you are in fact a militant atheist, or even a Dawkinsian New Atheist, which is what you are apparently discussing. You might be surprised to find that Dawkins does not use the term "militant atheism" in the manner you suggest in his New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. It has three instances of the term "militant atheism"—pages 484, 485 and 623—but in each case he is discussing Soviet practices, especially Leninism. In this book, Dawkins sometimes discusses avowed atheists such as Jean Meslier and Baron d'Holbach (these guys are from the 18th century, not at all "new" atheists), and in these cases he sometimes chooses to use the word "militant" as an adjective, meaning "strongly atheistic" or "vocally atheistic." So basically, Dawkins uses the term "militant atheist" to refer to a deadly dangerous form of Soviet atheism, or as mild emphasis for an avowed atheist. We are not going to host an article about atheists who are more firmly in command of their stance. If we were, we might as well call it Firm atheists or Avowed atheists. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Funny, then, that he uses "militant atheism" in exactly the same sense I am using it in his February 2002 TED talk, encouraging the audience to pursue "militant atheism." I don't think he's encouraging the people at TED to become Stalinists, but maybe I have Dawkins all wrong. Maybe you're right, and maybe Dawkins is really a Russian spy. *sarcasm* I should probably also tell you that the "New Encyclopedia of Unbelief" was edited by Tom Flynn, with the foreward by Dawkins. It is not listed in the Richard Dawkins bibliography as such. In any case, I'll concede this point. I'm done with this childish site and its ignorant editors. There's a reason so few academics still take Wikipedia seriously. (Lagoy (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
• Strongly oppose: Consensus was pretty clear in the AfD. It's just an invitation to POV pushing, coatracking and endless bickering. Our time and peace of mind is worth more than that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. "New Atheism" is not the same as militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons indicated on my talk page to the proposer, and the concerns brought up in the last discussion. The two terms are distinct, and where they overlap it is at best a disparaging label, and at worst intended to mislead. This page used to fall into the latter category, and I think we need to steer very clear of that going forward.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with all of the reasons to oppose this, given above, and I cannot think of further reasons to add. It's a real bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Transform the redirection in a disambiguation page

As most people presumably look for New Atheism and not for the League of Militant Atheists, I suggest to transform the redirection in a disambiguation page (as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&diff=643259550&oldid=643231928). What do you think? Raruss Okssél (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

I have low enthusiasm for doing that, based upon lengthy previous discussion, which you can see at Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 9. Most of the arguments for applying the "militant" label to the New Atheists specifically, as opposed to a subset of all atheists or a subset of all the nonreligious, come from their critics. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. Sites like Conservapedia might have chosen to frame new atheism as militant atheism, but our policies here are a little different; we should try to be neutral. bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Count the hits when you look for "militant atheism" in a search engine, and then search for "militant atheism" + "Richard Dawkins" and count again... It is a fact that very few people refer to the above-mentioned Soviet association. Rather than redirecting to one page or the other, the disambiguation page seems a good compromise, a neutral approach not to bias the result. Wello Caldhau (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Good article restored

Whoever tries to turn this page into a disambig or redirect is demonstrating militant ignorance. The term is ages old, well known in European philosophies. The article is well referenced with sources of direct relevance, which operate with this term. I have no idea why this version was tagged as non-neutral. The very concept is non-neutral.

Ironically, the term is embraced both by [militant] atheists and anti-atheists alike: the former have been proud of being militant in fight against religion, while the latter use the term as an accusation, since "militant atheists", in their opinion, are fighting against the source of "all Good on Earth". Militant atheism was one of the cornerstones of the Communist ideology.

I strongly suggest you to get familiar with the subject before destroying this page again. -M.Altenmann >t 06:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't conservapedia. There is no consensus to create the article. You are welcome to try to form a new consensus by starting a new discussion. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please show me the discussion about the deletion of the article. The mentioned link to Archive 9 does not show any discussion that the article must be deleted. You failed to counter my statement that it is well-known historical development and has nothing to do with conservapedia. What the heck are you talking about? -M.Altenmann >t 08:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very, very confused. The article you restored comes from Conservapedia.[5] The community has discussed this topic extensively, deciding on the previous redirect which you have now removed. It appears that in addition to being a very confused person, you are also incapable of abiding by community consensus, and seem to think the entire universe revolves around your immediate wishes and deires. Well, dozens of members of this community disagree with you. It's probably time for you to do some serious reflection on your mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently I am trimming the article of various fluff. It is not that important who called whom "militant atheist" and why. This may be added to the corresponding bios, but for encyclopedic understanding of the concept it is marginal. What is important how the concept emerged and to which heights it evolved. Association with "New Atheism" deserves references to scholar research (if any), not just listing of name calling. -M.Altenmann >t 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with Altenmann here. Militant atheism is much broader than Soviet league of militant atheists. I am really surprised that it was deleted. I suggest for Altenmann to make a new AfD nomination to discuss this question again, or simply (re)create the page after fixing it in his userspace. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Altenmann has been blocked for edit warring. Given the result of the AfD in which the consensus was to make the page a redirect, and given the clear consensus of discussions at the most recent talk page archive here, I strongly advise editors not to try to restore the page without establishing a clear consensus first. And that is not going to happen without discussion by more than just a few editors here. There would need to be a community RfC or something similar. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Or he could simply merge some content from here to article Atheism. There is no so much difference between "simply atheism" and "militant atheism". Both actively reject the existence of God.My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as actively rejecting the existence of God. That's your personal misunderstanding. One would first have to accept that God exists to reject it. You can't reject the existence of Santa Claus, for example. In any case, when pressed, you can't actually prove the existence of God, which is why you stress faith. In essence, you've disproved your own argument. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one need to know the concept of God to reject it. One can also reject the existence of Santa Claus in material world as something existing only in human imagination. And of course, one can believe in Santa Claus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But, Santa Claus exists in the material world. I saw him down at the mall last month. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

oh, yes. This is fact. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote change instead

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the following idea, but I'll point it out as a possible alternative to consider. At present, there is a hatnote at the top of League of Militant Atheists, and it says: "Militant atheism" redirects here. For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion.

We could consider expanding that hatnote in some way (so long as it conforms with WP:NPOV), by also directing readers who came here looking for New Atheism to that page. I do realize that some readers will come here looking for that. The issue is that we should not be promoting a POV-pushing talking point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that looks like a good approach. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As the disambiguation page, this could be a acceptable consensus. It changed it to:

"Militant atheism" redirects here. For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion and New Atheism.

Do not hesitate to suggest other options and discuss them here!

Sleet A. Bbeam (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

However, I do think that the most common use today is refering to New Atheism. For instance, Richard Dawkins' TED talk on "militant atheism" in 2007 ([6], [7]). I am thus also in favour of changing the redirection or creating a disambiguation page. Sleet A. Bbeam (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

Although people may come here looking for specific people which have been labeled New Atheists, that is a movement rather than a particular stance as far as I understand it. Those who use this term seem just as likely to apply it to anyone taking an active stance against religion whether part of New Atheism, another contemporary who has not been linked with New Atheism, or someone from centuries ago (long before New Atheism). For that reason isn't the ideal target for a redirect Antireligion? It in turn links to New Atheism as a particular movement within that concept. In other words: no related hatnote at New Atheism; redirect this page to Antireligion; include a hatnote there linking to League of Militant Atheists. Update: To clarify, even though I agree that this term applies more broadly than New Atheism, I'm not suggesting restoring this article -- I think Antireligion covers it, though I wouldn't be opposed to merging verrrrry selectively there. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think that would be an inappropriate redirect because, to to put it simple, "antireligion" is opposition to religion, but atheism is opposition to God. Religion and God are not the same at all! This is also not new Atheism. Best solution, in my opinion, would be restoration of the erroneously deleted page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

An editor has changed the hatnote at the target page to read: "For opposition to religion in general, see Antireligion and New Atheism." I'd like to check whether any editors here feel that this wording misrepresents New Atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I just changed it to:

"Militant atheism" redirects here. For other topics, see Atheism, Antireligion, State atheism, and New Atheism.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)