Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Goal

I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that. --Kbdank71 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So how does one help out here? I'm interested in helping as much as I can, but I haven't found the todo list.Crystalattice 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this project should do either open people's minds as such or jion people to convert, this is an encyclopedia, we should inform be creating good articles that become featured. By doing this we show sence of things and a contrast in belief. JMcD 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How To Help

For one, we need a template to put on all atheism-related articles. For example, we need something like this: , except it needs to be for Wikiproject Atheism. Thanks! Hezzy 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in: Can I recommend changing the icon for the user box. It's pretty tacky. I'll post if I can think of something better. --Jade 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of those bad boys as the logo. Something easily recognizable by both atheists and many theists.--Jade 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My Vote goes for the Flying Spaghetti monster, i have been touched by his noodely appendage--Goatan 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong vote against the FSM or Unicorn or similar: these are parody religions intended to be (at least somewhat) humorous. Atheism is not in this category. There's enough misunderstanding about atheism in the world already - let's not add to it. -- Writtenonsand 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Writtenonsand's vote against such an icon. Making associations with parody religions and atheism would be a mistake. I think Atheism's lack of iconography could make it difficult to come up with a more appropriate icon; I cannot think of any. Atheist-Expat 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Participation

Is anyone free to join this project? Also, might I suggest the inclusion of Secular ethics on the related article list? Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After taking a look, I say go for it. Looks totally fitting to me. I took the liberty of adding an atheism link and the atheism category to the Secular Ethics page. --Jade 09:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) * Hmm, I just noticed your sort of that pages parent. Hope I didn't step on any toes. :) --Jade 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact, I wanted people to help write the article since I ran out of ideas long ago, which is also one of the reasons I nominated it for AID. Anyway, thanks. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pink Unicorn - v - other "religions"

I noticed the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an Article on Atheism. I wonder if we want to go so far as to list all other related "Religions" or if it would be preferable to list the categories instead: Category:Fictional deities, & Category:Joke religions. Thoughts? --Jade 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanx whoever added the pink unicorn user box, I like that one better than the red/black A, put it on my talk page. Thanx again. --Jade 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image choice

Very, very poor job selecting an image to represent the WikiProject. The no symbol currently in use is a horrific and bizarre misrepresentation of what atheism means, and propagates the misconception that atheism amounts to antitheism (opposition to God). A black "X" in place of the no symbol, or a variety of other images, would be vastly preferable.

I'm also surprised by the choice to use the ominous color arrangement of an apocalyptic red A on a midnight-black background for the "Atheism WikiProject member" userbox; the sort of coloration in use on {{atheism}} and

athThis user is an atheist.

is much less potentially offensive or provocative (and also much prettier-looking), though this is obviously a less pressing issue than the inflammatory image. -Silence 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Loved it. I support its addition to the project templates Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although I don't think the black X is an improvement. PLEASE lets change the image. I would be mortified to have that image on my personal page and don't care to see it on any I visit. --Jade 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't believe in myths or superstitions.

Jeff dean 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found two that we can consider. The first is simply a black circle, which seems to have some circulation and semi-prevalent use. The other is an atom with an A inside of it, or just an atom. I'm not sure if the A/Atom is 'owned' by anyone. Therefore I vote for the simple black circle. Links: Circle and Atheist Symbol search where you can see various forms of the atom image --Jade 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The atom symbol represents American Atheists, let's not use it. They seem overly militant. Gary 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the circle on that website, but it says it is a Wiccan symbol. Maybe we could go with a fatter circle, like a donut? Here's an MSPaint example I whipped up:

http://imagesocket.com/view/atheismcircle2c6.png Gary 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well a circle is a pretty prolific shape. But I feel that the way in which it is being displayed is as important as the shape itself. The plain black circle on the plain white background is not a symbol used, at least commonly, in any witchcraft related religion. Circles will be in use everywhere we look, but crosses are used by more than just Christians, and pentagrams by more than just Wiccans. It's largely how it's used and what it looks like. I prefer the thinner lined circle, I think it's esthetically nicer and since it is already in use by the Atheist community it is preferable. But I think the thicker circle has merit too. --Jade 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be in the minority here, but I'm ok with the no symbol and the red/black color scheme. I saw that pink thing and even after reading the talk page, I still couldn't tell what it was. The no symbol and "god" is a no nonsense descriptor of our beliefs. I'm also ok with the Atom symbol. I use that in my atheist userbox. I don't think there's a problem with it representing American Atheists, because the text says "This user is an Atheist", not "This user is a member of American Atheists." Just my two cents. --Kbdank71 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for the atom symbol. I know the American Atheists are rather militant, but their sybol gives a recognizable representation of atheism. Hezzy 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But atheists are already one of the most distrusted of all minorities in the United States. It makes things worse to use a symbol that lumps them together with an organization as annoying as American Atheists.

I guess this discussion started with a symbol with a no sign over the word "GOD". I haven't seen that one yet, it would be helpful if someone posted it. I have another idea, though. How about we modify it to use the word "GODS" instead? This shows that atheists believe in no gods at all, rather than implying disbelief solely in the Christian God.

Here's my MSPaint example: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4347/nogods2xw0.png

Gary 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another possibility: A Times New Roman asterisk, as suggested here: http://intepid.com/2005/05/ Gary 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What about using a stylized version of the Humanist symbol, but using an "A" instead? I know not all athiests are Humanists and vice versa, but many people equate them as the same. Crystalattice 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you maybe draw an example? The whole idea behind the humanist symbol is that it looks like a human and the letter H. I think a similar atheist symbol would look like someone with no arms. Gary 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "GODS" might be more palatable to most than "GOD". With the plural, we aren't singling out the reader's faith. Then again, I'm ok with an "A" also. --

Kbdank71 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

god(s) would be better than gods, as christians, for example, don't believe in gods either, they believe in a god.Tuesday42 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If a lot of people like my idea, maybe someone skilled in graphic design could make a more polished image. Mine looks kind of crappy. Gary 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's my new version of the "No Gods" logo. I think this looks much better than the MSPaint version I made earlier. I think I should have made it bigger though, this one is 200x200 pixels. ::::::http://www.imagesocket.com/view/nogods995.png

How about a pair of handcuffs, but with the chain broken, thus signifying the Freedom from Religion. AthTim 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to make something like the Ghostbusters logo, except with Thor or Zeus or someone in place of the ghost. Gary 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

article requests

• I have been slowly adding citations to List of atheists, and have requested help on the article's talk page but it simply has stalled. If every member above just added 3 references we would have a sourced list in no time. A list of this nature without sources is useless as a source of information. Any help greatly appreciated. Just googling the name of and entry in quotes with the word atheist will often find a good source.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiccan Atheism = Atheist Witchcraft

Just a peep-peep to note that I moved (renamed) the Wiccan Atheism page and added further details. If anyone has an interest in the subject, please update what I've done, but it's about 5 times bigger than it was yesterday and it's now listed under a term used by the general population when they discuss the topic. So I consider it successful.--Jade 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

joining

How do I join? Do I just sign in?Tuesday42 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Tuesday42

• Just sign the list and start helping out. Thanky you! Hezzy 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A question. A previous post here states: "I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that." How are these goals being achieved, and how does one take part? JBIdF 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, informing people about things is the purpose of Wikipedia.Tuesday42 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

People who have found their way to Wikipedia and who are interested in learning more about atheism will go to atheism. Read that article, and if you see anything wrong, anything that needs clarification, or anything that's confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject, edit it and fix it. The page on atheism should be the biggest focus of this project, but it should lead people to other areas that they may become curious about. Right now, it is a very good article, but I'm sure you can find some way to improve it.

Once the atheism page is to your satisfaction, go to some other page related to atheism, and work on that. I've noticed that a lot of philosophical concepts on Wikipedia are difficult for people unfamiliar with philosophy, myself included, to wrap their minds around. Maybe you could work on a plain English explanation for something you find. Gary 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section. This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased. In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists. No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions. Please leave reactions on the article talk page. Thank you. Durova 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

68.5.175.227 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PLEASE UNDELETE THIS ARTICLE. This article helps to soften the razor sharp blow of atheist rationalism to the wavering believers. Satire is very relevant in areas that provoke controversy. And believe me (pun intended) atheists need all the satirical help they can get. 68.5.175.227 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the article on the Evil Atheist Conspiracy worth keeping? Looks like an inside joke from a usenet newsgroup...any objections if I nominate it for deletion? SnaX 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we keep it, altough I don't feel all that strongly about it.Tuesday42 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for deletion but don't feel too strongly about it either. Doesn't seem noteworthy to me; Wikipedia is not a huge pile of junk. I might be wrong though; how do you legitimately quantify "significance" of internet phenomena? Nonetheless, my vote is to delete. More discussion is always appreciated (: Rashad9607 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission complete. Reporting for new orders sir. SnaX 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Call me pedantic but

I'm not sure that nihilism belong's in Wikiproject atheism. There are religious forms of nihilism and nihilism related work ( in the old testament for example in Ecclesiates and in eastern religion) so it's not clear that atheism has any real link to nihilism. Further more why should we take the bad rap associated with nihilism when we don't have to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.111.91 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing on nihilism and it's relationship with atheism, but must say that I don't think avoiding a "bad rap" is a legitimate excuse for changing Wikipedia. Strive for factual accuracy and objectivity, things I unfortunately cannot help you with on this topic. Rashad9607 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the article on nihilism, but I can make a few relevant points immediately, and I will then read and edit the article:

Nihilism is, roughly, (and at least in modern philosophy), a belief that nothing is of any value, or, alternately, that value is an intangible concept. Nihilism does, indeed, categorically eliminate any deity from its worldview via an argument that certain things which make a God a God-- i.e., that it is the "supreme being", etc.-- are impossible because, in that particular example, supremacy itself is impossible.

However, atheism does not by any means imply or require nihilism; there are perfectly valid systems of valuation, ethics, et cetera, which do not rely upon the existence of any supernatural entity: Nietzsche attempted such a "revaluation of all values" in his The Will to Power, and others have written works similar to it in that respect: Nietzsche, an ardent atheist, fought throughout his work against nihilism.

So, in summary, nihilism more or less does imply atheism, but atheism does not imply nihilism. As I say, I haven't yet read this article, but if it does associate nihilism with atheism inappropriately then this should certainly be changed; many-- (indeed, I believe, most)-- atheists aren't nihilists. I will be checking the article and editing it accordingly and including appropriate citations of Nietzsche and others if this is necessary.

Tastyummy 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you respond to my argument that there are religious forms of what are, almost certainly, nihilism ( i.e in places in the old testament).

Timothy J Scriven 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A specific response would call for an analysis of the specific places in the Old Testament showing a "religious nihilism". Nihilism is not simply extreme immorality or even amorality, but the negation of valuation in general, at least as it relates philosophically to its negative and often-erroneous association with atheism. If by religious you mean, for example, influenced by religion as opposed to characteristic of some example of religion, then it is true that virtually any Western nihilist could be considered as exhibiting a "religious nihilism", but if nihilism is to be examined historically and philosophically, then it seems to me more appropriate that it be characterised as necessarily atheistic.

We are left with a dilemma: are we to leave "nihilism" in wikiproject:atheism, and perhaps also to modify the article on nihilism to clearly reflect the fact that as the term is often used by moralists it can be held from a philosophical perspective-- which is, after all, an appropriate one here, as nihilism is primarily considered as a philosophical position-- to be used erroneously, or are we to categorise atheism and nihilism as both non-religious and influenced by religion (since, for example, atheism, when explicitly stated as a position, necessarily is influenced by religion to the extent that it refers to it in negating it)?

Again, very generally, it is most certainly not true that all atheists are nihilists, but nihilism as a stated philosophical position implies atheism. Please clarify what you mean by "religious nihilism" and cite passages illustrating it in the Old Testament.

For now, I propose that we leave "nihilism" under wikiproject atheism, simply because more precisely characterising atheism as not implying nihilism by editing the nihilism article in order to reflect this fact when necessary would help to clarify Wikipedia's treatment of atheism by removing erroneous references to atheism in general as nihilistic.

Tastyummy 06:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Adevism

Gosh golly I can't seem to find an e-descriptions of Adevism that isn't a citation of Britannica (as is the single-line Wikipedia article), or that isn't a citation of the wiki stub itself. I'll try and find more, hopefully a text of Müller himself. But based on what I see of Adevism, it doesn't seem to earn it's own article. Rather, it seems merely like atheism targeted against Hinduism. Delete and add material to Atheism? And relevant Vedanta article, perhaps? Rashad9607 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was originally going to say merge it with Vedanta, but I don't think it would add anything to that article (and therefore wikipedia as a whole) except "some people disagree with it. here's some info about one, obscure guy with super-sweet sideburns who did!". in other (shorter) words, I think it would be worthless. So, I'm leaning towards delete unless someone can change my mind! SnaX 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out

Hi all. I started an article on Daniel Harbour's book, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism. A while later, a user (Moon&Nature) invited me to join in with this project. I consider myself a fairly competent atheist as well as somebody who strives for neutrality on all articles, controversial or otherwise. I would be glad to help out in any way I can. -Neural 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brights movement

New to the place. Wonder, how is this project related to Brights_movement? I know there are atheist which do believe in ghosts or other supernaturals, but I think we should find a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipipuz (talk • contribs)

I am not sure your question makes sense. The brights movement, as I read in the article, has nothing to do with ghosts, and it does seem to have plenty to do with atheism. You should find a link to what now? Sign your comments. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview with no unsupported beliefs in supernatural explanations. There is no "link" between the being a bright and believing in ghosts. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. A bright would only believe in a ghost if ghosts were well-demonstrated by overwhelming evidence to exist. There is no solid evidence for ghosts, or any credible scientific theory supporting ghosts, and so you will not catch many(any?) brights believing in them. -Neural 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Belief Systems"

At the bottom of the atheism and antitheism page there is a link to "belief systems". I'm really sick and tired of explaining to people that Atheism is not a "belief system" it is the lack thereof!. I consider applying the term "belief system" to atheism to be POV-pushing pro-religiousism and that link section should probably be changed. Lordkazan 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the blue boxes with a number of belief systems, with atheism and antitheism listed among them, and I think that these boxes, with atheism and antitheism included, may be useful for some people. I agree that not all the subjects in the boxes are belief systems, however. Can you suggest a better label to group these subjects under? Gary 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"philosophies and religions" ? Lordkazan 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That would imply that we should add things like Christianity and Islam to the list. Maybe we should just label it "Philosophies"? Gary 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "philosophical positions"? Atheism alone isn't necessarily an "entire" philosophy, although atheism is a position taken by many philosophers and is an important part of their philosophies. "Philosophical positions" wouldn't necessarily have to include things like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, unless we could somehow clarify that, as philosophical positions, these religions are generally (really always, but, here in NPOV-land, "generally) defeated by the fact that they are supported by arguments from authority.

We might be able to get away with "philosophical positions" if we can get away with calling faith an argument from authority, which I think we can, given that the article on faith specifically states that

"In essence, faith must be present in order to know anything[sic]. In other words, one must assume, believe, or have faith in the credibility of a person, place, thing, or idea in order to have a basis for knowledge."

I wholeheartedly agree that atheism is not necessarily a "belief system", but acknowledge that, (and, in my opinion, unfortunately), it sometimes reflects one. I saw a site recently (unfortunately, I don't know its URL) which was run by an atheist who, on one page, expressed his belief in alternatives to supernaturalistic epistemologies, i.e., in the efficacy of science. While I disagree with him and instead hold that the efficacy of science is evidenced in its successful prediction of real phenomena via models and that it thus needn't be the object of any sort of faith, I can't say that he isn't an atheist, since, indeed, he doesn't believe in God: his argument for science is fallacious, but it is, nevertheless, atheistic.

Specifically, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but (and, again, unfortunately, as I see it) not always a lack of faith and belief in general.

Tastyummy 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief

Does anyone here have any knowledge of Jonathan Miller's documentary series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief? The article is rather lacklustre and thin on information. It could use some work, preferably by somebody who has the documentary on video. It's a shame the article is so shabby since it was a thoughtful and well-presented series. Unfortunately, it has been a while since I saw it and I don't have it on tape. Compare that article to the one on The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins. It would be nice to get the article to a similar standard. -Neural 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Critique of atheism

There's a lot going on in the discussion page for the article Critique of atheism, with a couple of Christians joining the discussion and trying to make it more "neutral" by adding criticism and removing responses to them. I think it's a good opportunity to improve that article. I recommend you guys go check it out just in case they overdo it. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The God Delusion

The God Delusion by the brilliant scientist Richard Dawkins is out now. Feel free to track down a copy and help build up a good enyclopedic article about the book. -Neural 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Presenting Atheism positively

Words like godless and "lack of belief", are presenting Atheism negatively. It gives fuel to non-atheists to suggest that Atheists are lacking something or deficent. I have heard non-atheists describe Atheists as lacking the ability to believe in god. As an Atheist I am sure that I do not lack a belief, rather I believe in reality. Theists seem to have an endless appitite for painting Atheists negatively, I don't think Atheists should help them do that. Can we change the Atheism related pages so that Atheism is presented in a positive manner? As an example the Theism page describes an Atheist as "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities" I have proposed that the descrition be changed to "Atheism is a belief that god(s) and deities do not exist". There have been two objection one saying that the description should "chime" with the Atheism Wikipedia entry. The, so far short, discussion can be seen on the Theism talk page. Comments?

I wouldn't want it changed because I have disbelief in gods, that's NOT the same as a belief that gods do not exist. --Charlesknight 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your position. In what way do you "disbelief" in gods? What gods do you think exist? Can you add anything else that would support your position?Vamptoo 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is THE lack of belief, it is not a belief, and I find any suggestion that it is "a belief" contradictory to the definition at best - and from some peoples mouths offensive (because they're trying to define it as such to commit to a straw man argument) Lordkazan 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the term "godless" to be somewhat derogatory, as it implies that a god is missing from an atheist's life when they should believe in one, but I do not find the phrase "lack of belief" derogatory if it is used in a polite manner. Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in gods. It does not imply a belief that there is no god, or even a belief in reality, though I would suspect all atheists with sound minds believe in reality so far as they can observe and understand it with their senses and mind. The belief that gods do not exist is separate from the lack of belief in gods, because belief that gods do not exist requires a decision to be made, most likely without evidence, whereas a lack of belief in gods does not require a decision to be made.

This semantic difference is often brought up in discussions about atheism, and it leads to people hauling out dictionaries and encyclopedias and separating "strong atheism" from "weak atheism" or "atheist atheism" from "agnostic atheism". These classifications are rather boring to discuss and don't affect much. The common thread which unites all these groups is the lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods. Gary 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"lack of belief" and "godless" are both used to imply that there is something missing form an Atheist's life, and both are negative terms. An Agnostic is someone who has not made a decision regarding the existence of a god or gods. An Atheist is someone who knows that there are no god(s) or deities. Applying adjectives such as strong and weak could lead to insanity if that concept were applied to all groups of people, as should be done if you are willing to apply adjectives to one group. If you allow "agnostic atheism" (I suppose that is someone who has made a decision, but doesn't know if the decision was made???), then would you allow "christian agnostic atheism"? Someone who lacks belief in god(s) but believes that there are god(s) is not an atheist. You have added alot of twists and turns but you have not addressed the fact "lack of belief" is describing Atheism negatively, and despite what you say you have not united the groups as you suggest. If you are going to insist that Atheists believe that god(s) exist, then what you are doing is sneaking a god in through the back door and even a Theist should be offended by that.166.70.7.181 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the parent, I apologize for not being logged in.Vamptoo 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You got the definition of atheism and agnosticism all mixed up. The latest topic in the Atheism article discussion speaks of this very matter and should be very enlightening to you. It is also where this discussion belongs. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that atheists are people who know that there are no god(s) or deities. While such people are atheists, I would classify other people who do not believe in gods as atheists as well. Using the first of two defintions given by Wikipedia, "A person who does not believe that at least one god exists," one can even imagine that agnostics, who are unsure about the existence of gods, could be included as a form of atheists, because agnostics must not believe in gods if they are unsure of the gods' existence.

To summarize, atheists either have no belief in the existance of gods or positively assert that there is no god, whereas agnosticism is the position that the existance of god can't be proven. They speak of different matters and are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have an agnostic atheist as much as an agnostic Christian. Christian atheists are a ridiculous thought though. Hope this helps. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a disgression, so to get to the point we started from, presenting atheism positively, it may be possible to exchange "lack of belief" with "disbelief". More specifically, phrases such as "lack of spiritual beliefs" may be substituted for "lack of spirituality" or "disbelief in a supernatural component of spirituality". The second phrase avoids any negative connotations associated with the word "lack". While the word "lack" when used in descriptions of various characteristics of atheism is not offensive to me, if it bothers others, it wouldn't be much of a problem to change the phrases it is used in, in much the way I have just described. Gary 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Starghost above "Christian atheists are a ridiculous thought though." No, I concieved the same phrase myself spontaneously without ever having heard it before. This was the best, most accurate phrase I could construct to describe persons whose personal values were the same as those espoused by the christian religion(s) except for Christ's divinity. In this phrase the term christian is an adjective describing the properties of a certain kind of atheist. Just as in the phrase "Jumbo Shrimp", Jumbo describes shrimp with a specific property, "Being a large shrimp", "Christian" in the phrase "Christian Atheism" describes an Atheist who has values like those in the christian religion sans divinity. If you prefer you can think of the phrase as a shorthand label for "Christian value-centric Atheism" I was delighted to see that many other had traveled the same path of logic long before I ever had even begun to. Jjk 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "absence of belief" is used a lot these days as well. I think it's connotation is not as bad as "lack of" Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is making an active statement that gods do not exist. I was an agnostic until I realized that agnosticism implies that theism and atheism are equally plausible. But, it is fairly obvious that the two stances are nowhere near equally plausible. So I changed to weak atheism. Since I refute the existence of any deities when asked, some might say I'm a strong atheist. The difference, in practice, is ill-defined. I prefer just to say I'm an atheist because I put God in the same category as unicorns and goblins. Better yet, if you want a positive term --- call yourself a Bright. The Bright movement is atheistic by definition, and it has a more positive ring to it than "atheist". -Neural 13:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell had a similar problem. He found that when he described himself as an agnostic, most people took that to mean that he thought the existence of a god was unproven, but plausible. If I recall correctly, he called himself an agnostic in academic settings (or when talking to people who would understand the nuance), and called himself an atheist to convey the right idea to the average Joe. Lamont A Cranston 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to add wikipage on Victor J. Stenger.

I'm going at add a wikipage on Victor J. Stenger. You'll probably know him as a skeptic and given he's very much into refuting theistic origins of things so he's very much an active atheist and he says as much. He's still alive and active AFAIK. It's my first new page. It'll take me over the weekend to add the initial content. I think he's notable enough as I'm hitting enough references to him on a number of other articles plus he has a number of books on Amazon. Ttiotsw 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, be bold and add as much as you can. You can bet there are a lot of religious people adding a lot less notable stuff to push their view. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - It'll be more than this weekend as I got bogged down on just that issue on the The Quran and science page. Whew - talk about flogging a dead horse. Sometimes I just wonder why I bother keeping with my ideals of religious Pluralism ! But it's coming very very soon and I want it to read right first time as I suspect I'll be watched closely on any page edits. His bibliography and people who have referenced him in their books makes me wonder why he already hasn't a page. Is there something I'm missing here ? I guess I'll find out. Ttiotsw 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My draft is in a sandbox at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttiotsw/Sandbox-Test1 Please add stuff as you see fit. Ttiotsw 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is good enough to be put into a real page where people could make more significant changes. Anyway, good work. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Added in as Victor J. Stenger plus a redirect page at Victor Stenger. Please edit as normal now (and be bold) and when you see Stenger in any stuff (usually physics or cosmology) then please wikilink as you see fit. Ttiotsw 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheism revamp

I'm currently in the middle of a major revamp to atheism, to attempt to trim down some of the bloated sections, expand some of the stubby ones, and add lots and lots of inline references. As part of this endeavor, I am planning to create a few more daughter articles for atheism so that important information which has been lost since past versions of the article (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&oldid=64381440) can be included on Wikipedia without bloating atheism, in articles like Implicit and explicit atheism. In line with articles like this and eutheism and dystheism, I would like to know what you all think about the possibility of merging strong atheism and weak atheism into a single article, Strong and weak atheism? My rationale is posted to Talk:Weak atheism. -Silence 18:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nontheism Portal

Hey folks! I have been working to get Portal:Nontheism in shape. I was hoping that if there were some interested people around here, I could get some help filling out the content? More than anything we need an "intro," but we also need help getting our quotes filled in. Of course, we could definitely use help getting more "Did you know?" bits, and future content for bios/articles. Hope to see you folks around! --Wolf530 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I added the question "Will you also help prevent atheism-based censorship throughout Wikipedia?" Which was deleted without discussion. Hmm... To be more specific. Atheistic articles (like Richard Dawkins, Russell's Teapot) appear to be protected by a group of atheist editors whose response to any material the appears to be critical of their positions is to delete it. Is Atheism really such a weak creed that it has to supress any criticism? NBeale 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly just a minor point regarding WP:No Personal Attacks: Describing editors as "atheist" is talking about the editor not about their contributions. Also, an article cannot be "atheistic" as it is an innanimate object any more than a "rock" is atheistic. It can only be interpreted by an observer as having content which is usualy associated with someone who has an atheistic viewpoint but that doesn't mean it is not neutral. There is a difference. I think you need to be clear if the articles mentioned are not neutral as opposed to your opinion on the actual content. Many articles related to the scientific theory of evolution are vandalised and I'm guessing anyone here thanks you when you correct this. Many watch for vandalism (including bots) and it is best to WP:Assume good faith with any reverts on the part of these editors. If you find any censorship of pages e.g. blanking or other styles of vandalism like innapropriate tags then you can revert this too. If you have examples of vandalism by people then please take that up on the article talk page or with the person on their talk page. To make any more claims regarding so-called censorship you really need to be more specific with which edits else you're just making unsubstantiated accusations of poor faith edits. Ttiotsw 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Balancing ordinals used Argumentum ad numerum on faith pages.

The issue is that ordinals get used when comparing religions (as in my religion is bigger than your religion - a kind of argumentum ad numerum.) As an example of use of an ordinal is in the Islam page e.g., "Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.[4][5]". My argument is that the use of the ordinal second in this article is not right as it disregards the very large number of "others". It should thus be "third". If all groupings are included and not just ignored as a population, then secular groupings (see Major_religious_groups for examples), must also be included. In some countries this is a moot point but secular groupings in Europe easily outnumber all other minor non-Christian religions and to disregard this group is disregarding a significant portion of post-Enlightenment European ideas. Is it thus valid for us to tweak these ordinals if the reference cited has a non-religious grouping (whether of not the grouping is considered to be a "faith" or not by other editors or the cite). Ttiotsw 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheism article on hold as GA candidate

The Atheism article has been nominated for GA status, and a reviewer has placed the nomination for hold for reasons cited at the Talk:Atheism#GA on hold page. Any efforts to address these concerns would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:The Great American God Out

A new user has created this article / category. I am wondering if the article portion is worth salvaging? --George100 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion, on the basis of it containing only a single article. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 10. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What to believe

<removed>

I have re-inserted this inadvertently amusing piece, not because of any intrinsic merit beyond the ability to misquote Einstein, but because Wikipedia is not censored. Larklight (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't a sopabox, this is a ban on adding content such as the above (and more expressly, banning its addition to article pages. While it justifies removing any overt flaxing from articles (and indeed anything not in line with NPOV), it does not justify or allow its removal from talk pages. Please do not remove it again Larklight (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't overlooked any of it. But no-where does it allow you to remove content from talk pages. In good faith I'm going to avoid revetring this time, but if you can't find a section of policy which allows you to remove content from talk pages, I will. Not feeding the trolls means ignoring them, not blanking themLarklight (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY, which admittedly is only an essay, might be seen as applying. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That discusses ignoring vandalism, and is mainly refering to article pages. Unless you (or Geroge100) can come up with a reference justifing the removal of other editors content from talk pages, I will have no hoice byut to continue to revert you. On this matter you need specific justification- general things that vandalism is bad is not enough. Additionally, you are giving far more attention to trolls than I am- I would simply ignore, and possibly leave a message on their talkpage (if it wasn't already fulll of them, I'm uncertain as to what to do at that stage) Larklight (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hesen re-insereted Larklight (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant to discuss their articles. In this case, this talk page is here in order to discuss the Wikiproject, and only that. Wikipedia is not a forum\message board, and these talk pages are no place to preach or discuss topics in such a manner. The above remarks should be removed, not on the grounds of censorship or anything like that, but solely because it is not relevant to the Wikiproject. — Kieff | Talk 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of God -- pardon the expression -- I've provided TWO: namely WP:SOAP and the honking big notice at the top of this very page, which reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Atheism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article." I could throw in number three Do Not Feed the Trolls -- toss in a fourth -- namely the track record of the single-purpose account who added this here and anywhere else he could. Finally, there is a fifth reason you've overlooked when you adopted your air of moral superiority about trolls, namely that you don't ignore trolls by NOT reverting them nor by giving them a platform: you've forgotten that all-important first step from the "Revert Block Ignore". --Calton | Talk 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Appologies- you are indeed right, as the message on the top of the page shows. Removal is entirely justifiable, but only after making reference to that, the only section to justify removal- which you hadn't preveously.Larklight (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism a WP:Atheism page

Why? Buddhism can be nontheistic - but that doesn't mean that it is completely atheistic. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Buddhists can be either theist or atheist. The atheistic segments would qualify it for this project, IMO. Aleta (Sing) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles relating to atheistic Buddhism would clearly fall within the scope of this project, given their atheistic content. But, I guess in general, except for those articles, it probably wouldn't be particularly useful to tag Buddhism articles with the Atheism project, as their content wouldn't necessarily relate to the subject. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2 WikiProject Tags

As there are 2 wikiproject tags, I figured it would be best to use one that is most developed and most widely used. Any objections on me adding a notice on the wiki template Template:Wpa2 (with out the class parameter) saying to use the other wiki template Template:Wpa? The former one conveniently had only 2 articles tagged by it and I already changed them to the newer version so adding the noticeboard wont cause any problems I think? If there are any objections, please feel free to revert. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see that the other even links anywhere. Feel free to turn it into a redirect, if you want. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's not at all in use, should we just delete it? Aleta (Sing) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious stance: Atheist?

The Francis Crick article says (in the infobox) "Religious stance None". Someone edited it to say "Religious stance Atheist". I reverted that, but now I'm wondering. Is there a consensus on this? --RenniePet (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says he described himself as an agnostic leaning toward atheism, so I would guess agnostic would probably be the best term to use here. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my question was a more principle one: Is it OK to call Atheism a "religious stance"? We object to people calling Atheism a religion.

Adding to the confusion is that the infobox template says "religion =", not "religious_stance =", even though it generates the text "religious stance". --RenniePet (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, if relevant, either "agnosticism" or "atheism" could be used in that box, if that information is verifiable. "Atheism" might not be the best possible input, as until recently someone called an "atheist" by one group might actually be basically an adherent of a philosophy more specifically known elsewhere, and there may be a question when an individual becomes an atheist being potentially relevant. My guess answer would still be "yes", but it might be useful to ask for input at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that "Atheist" is, technically, not a religious stance. But for all practical purposes, it provides a quick reference to what could be vital information about a person. If someone is wondering if Francis Crick believed in God, then a quick glimpse at his infobox would at least provide a general idea. In the same way as the "Alma Mater" section gives you a rough idea of where someone studied, the "religious stance" entry can give you a starting point for further reading. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of atheists

Hello. I am interested in getting some different perspectives on the introduction wording and inclusion criteria for the List of atheists. These are periodically causes of some controversy, and I just want to make sure that whatever the intro and inclusion criteria are, they have the support of wider consensus. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns

Hey gang I am not sure where to put this so here goes...

I just took a look at state atheism and was astonished. It's like the entire article is one big fundamental attribution error. The examples given are communist China, communist Soviet Union, communist North Korea, totalist Albania, etc. Yet the communism thread is overlooked and instead atheism is front and center.

Then they go on to document "persecution under communist regimes" yet the reader is lead to believe these instances of real persecution are the result of atheism. What the heck? By conflating communism and totalism with atheism the reader mistakenly is lead to believe that atheism is somehow related to totalism and communism. Linking "I do not believe in god" to "I am going to enslave you and kill you if you don't like it" is a hell of a stretch.

Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a theism. The fact these are atheist states is a footnote to communism and/or totalism. Atheists murdering theists is not an example of atheism, it is an example of murder, or totalism, or genocide. Atheism is not a morality or code of conduct or a political belief. Atheism does not include the belief you can oppress and or muder those you do not agree with. That's totalism. It is nothing more than the rejection of theism (i.e. "I do not believe in any god(s)", or "belief in god is not for me" or even "god does not exist". Even if a government professes "we hate religion and want to kill all religionists" that would not be an example of an atheists government. It would be an example of a bunchg of assholes who don't believe in god. Atheism has no philosophy, no worldview so how can you have an atheist state? Unless of course a part of atheism includes a view of law, government, economics, justice etc.

Criticism of atheism is just as bad. They conflate atheism and totalism so the reader is lead to believe atheism caused Pol Pot to murder millions. How can that be? Atheism is not a belief that your political opponents should be murdered. Atheism does not include murdering religionists. Again, I am under the impression atheism is the rejection of theism which has nothing to do with genocide, totalism or communism or murder for that matter. The criticism of atheism article even has pornographic violence (a torture victim) to make sure the reader gets a full-on in your face biased experience of atheism. That is insulting and cheap propaganda.

At best I think state atheism and criticism of atheism are nothing more than glaring examples of an attribution error in the form of an article. At worst these two perpetuate a profound ignorance on many levels while also promoting a hideous bias that is bibically based ("atheists are bad mmmkay"). That state atheism article should be called state communism or state totalism or be deleted. The criticism of atheism should be deleted in view of there is nothing to criticize about rejecting theism, unless of course it's ok to promote bibical biases in the form of a Wiki article. The ONLY argument against atheism is bibically based and basically says those who reject god are really bad (evil) people and they will go to hell. Do we really want to promote that kind of logic and bias here is my question.

Angry Christian (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is not a hit-and-run bitch fest. I am seeking opinions and want to be a part of the solution if one can be found. Angry Christian (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the problems you point out are justifications for improving the articles, not deleting them. State atheism as a term has a long history of use, and there are plenty of real-world examples of state atheism that ought to be covered under an article of this title. It just happens that most countries with state atheism were also communist countries. And yes, these countries did some awful things to people in the name of state atheism. That's a fact, and a legitimate area of coverage for such an article. Criticism of atheism is another legitimate subject of an article. That many of the criticisms of atheism are way off the mark does not mean that they shouldn't be covered. It's our job to present the major points of view neutrally. Such would take the form of "Many critics of atheism say that it leads to X, a claim that defenders counter by saying Y." Nick Graves (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Graves. I agree with your (Angry Christian) analysis that the articles are in a sorry state, but not that the article should not exist. Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read just about every online dictionary I can find for a definition of atheism and none mentioned genocide, murder or brutality. I also checked the 3 book dictionaries in my home. None even mentioned genocide, murder or brutality. I also looked up the genocide and none mentioned atheism.

Furthermore, I looked could you or anyone else provide a definition of atheism that included the belief that one has the right to brutalize others or commit genocide?

The criticism of atheism 1

It's worth noting Christianity condemns atheism for no other reason than atheists reject the Christian scheme and are therefore portrayed as immoral and doomed to eternal damnation by God himself. And I can't help but note the primary "critic" of atheism is a devout Christian who makes these baseless claims:

"Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."[18] He also contends "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."

So his "argument is "who can deny my opinion?" Is that encyclopedic, to get a biased, partisan view that does not provide any analysis at all and instead simply conflates atheisms with atrocities against mankind. This is not a criticism of atheism it's a smear job. Garden variety character assassination. And following that sort of nonsense with an atheist rebuttal is absurd.

This kind of ignorance and conflation of atheism and crimes against humanity is exactly what i would expect from Pat Robertson, or the 700 Club, or CBN or from Ferry Falwell, so seeing this sort of propaganda at Wikidepia is a bit startling to me. The fact that there are tons of sources who will conflate atheism with all sorts of bad stuff does not mean Wikipedia should perpetuate this sort of nonsense.

The article reads like a Ben Stein movie. "Atheism = Pol Pot = genocide" yet not a single explanation for this tenuous relationship is given. All that's given is a really bad Christian writer gives his personal, snotty opinion. This is encyclopedic?

And even the title is misleading. The article does not criticize atheism at all. It criticizes brutality. And I cannot help but notice that there is no criticism of Isaac Asimov's atheist contribution to American culture, there is no criticism of Sam Harris's atheist ideas, nor do we see any criticism of Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Vonnegut, Noam Chomsky who had quite a bit to say about theism, John Leslie Mackie, where is the criticism of John Stuart Mill's contribution to philosophy? Why is there no criticism of Richard Dawkins and his atheist viewpoint in this article? And for crying out loud Albert Ellis, the grandfather of cognitive-behavioral psychology who was voted the second most influential psychologist in history is not even mentioned. Where is the criticism of his atheist model for treating treating mental health issues? This is why I am saying the article is nothing more than anti-atheism propaganda. You might as well have a Criticism of Judaism article and do nothing but quote Adolph Hitler (and call that encyclopedic).

And it's most difficult to improve an article that is not even close to being encyclopedic. It's like asking someone to try and "improve" The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the actual book, not the Wiki article). What would the point be? I think it should either be deleted or hidden until a version that is not so offensive to the senses can be drawn up. And if you're going to criticize atheism then criticize atheism and don't redefine atheism and then smear it.

Opinions? Angry Christian (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are existing "criticism of" articles for every belief system out there, including atheism. There is no particular reason to delete just the one article relating to atheism, as you seem to be proposing. And it isn't really the place of any editor to say, as you seem to basically do above, "I don't think the article can be improved, so delete it." If we did that, I think we might have maybe 5000 articles, not 2.3 or whatever million articles. I acknowledge that the existing articles are weak, but that is not cause for their deletion. Most of the points you raised above are good ones. I would disagree to a degree about the lack of content regarding questions regarding the belief systems of individual atheists, however, because those individuals do not have any sort of "official" proponents of atheism. As there is, in effect, no "atheist" church, there are no official dogmas, policies and guidelines of that body, and as a result no such policies or guidelines of atheism as a whole which can be criticized. Criticism of Asimov's atheism is certainly not the same as Criticism of Buddhism, even though Buddhism is officially regarded as "atheistic". The only cases when atheism has ever been "officially recognized" is by the communist governments, so, in effect, those are the only instances when there has been any sort of "official" atheism to criticize. Having said that, I can and do think that the content in the articles can and should be changed. The problems arise regarding matters of WP:Undue weight and the like. Feel free to propose any changes you see fit in the articles themselves though, preferably on the talk pages of those articles, and provide links to those discussions here if you see fit. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, thanks for chiming in. How is atheism a "system"? Again, going by every single dictionary I have been able to find, atheism is a singular belief and not a system. And yes we agree there is no atheist bible, code, etc. which strngthens my points. And I would describe Soviet Union as a communist/marxist/stalinist governement that was also atheistic, but portraying it as an atheist state is misleading. They were anti-religion which is very distinct from atheism. And claiming Soviet Union is an "official" version of atheism is quite frankly disturbing. It ignores virtually everything they stood for in favor of blaiming it on their atheism. John Carter, can you provide a reliable (and non-partisan) source that defines atheism as a system of beliefs, or related to anti-religion? Angry Christian (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is technically only a single belief, admittedly. However, that belief tends to be have an impact on other beliefs of the adhering individuals, often in regard to those activities which are counted as "religious virtues", so, in effect, given its carry-over into other segments of activity and belief, it is to a degree a system, although, as Buddhism falls within that scope as well, a far from homogenous one. And I did not make the statement you quoted above. I do not believe that the Soviet Union was an official version of atheism. However, it was an officially atheist body. As such, it is one of the few out there which can be discussed in a general sense regarding atheism. Should it be included in that article? Well, unless you can point toward other officially atheist bodies, it probably should be at least mentioned. Should the bulk of the existing content be there? Probably not. Should content on officially Buddhist states be included? Probably, although that would almost certainly be counted as being just as misleading in that way as mention of the Soviet Union is, and already has I think such content elsewhere. And your personal opinion, while not discounted, of what the Soviet Union was probably qualifies as a POV, which, as per that page, is not really what we go by.

Several individuals have criticized the Soviet Union on the basis of its ideological atheism and expliciting linked the Soviet Union and atheism/irreligion, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn among them, so it is a valid, recognized view as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. And, if, as you indicated above, atheism is to be counted only as a single belief in a single idea, the same could be said about Christianity as well, given the wide disagreement over time over what qualifies as "Christian".

What it seems to me you are arguing is, in effect, a minimalist view of atheism which does not particularly enhance the prospects of really writing anything about the subject, as your position seems to be to limit it to the single belief you specified. Little if anything can be said on that subject, other than "some people believe it, including Z, and others, like X, disagree."

Also, you appear to draw a line between atheism and opposition to religion. In all honesty, while I acknowledge the fact of the difference, it is a comparatively small one. How could a religious person be opposed to religion? There are clearly difficulties in trying to do so, so, in effect, the field is somewhat functionally limited to atheists, although not necessarily including all of them. And even Richard Dawkins, one of the other names you mentioned, has explicitly said religious belief is a delusion, which can be seen as being anti-religious. On that basis, differentiating atheism and anti-religious movements can be a bit difficult.

I can't know this, but what I think may have happened in the past is that, officially or unofficially, people may have either merged articles relating to different subjects or unofficially joined content on what you think are unrelated subjects in the belief that they are related. This happens a lot, particularly in content relating to religious beliefs, if any. Again, if you have specific concerns about specific articles, it's probably best to raise them on the talk pages of those individual articles, and maybe providing links to those discussions here and to any other projects which might be relevant to the articles. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, thanks again for your well thought out reply. You said "atheism is to be counted only as a single belief in a single idea, the same could be said about Christianity" Christianity has a bible, a code of conduct, a rule set (commandments) a history, and dogma. It makes sense to criticize Christianity. There is something there to hang your hat on. Atheism lacks all these. And I hope I have never suggested we should hide the fact that the Soviet Union is atheistic, but it's atheism is not what lead it to violence against it;s own people. Stalin/Lenin murdered atheist too. They killed or imprisoned anyone who threatened their power. Not a peep of this is in either article. The reader is lead to believe that Pol Pot's atheism caused the genocide. If you take the time to actually read the Pol Pot article (which seems like a very good article FYI) it becomes clear his murderous ways were the results of a bigger politital belief system and he too murdered anyone who threatened his power or represented a threat to his objectives. John Carter, when you have time would you do me a favor and read the Pol Pot article and then look at the blub about him in the state atheism article? In most cases Pol Pots victims included religionists but not just because they believed in god. Read that article and then read what is written about him in State atheism and tell me something here does not add up. The reader is lead to believe atheism caused the genocide. As a reader this oversimplification and conflation of cause - effect is disturbing.

Also, you said "How could a religious person be opposed to religion?" Have you seen the Middle East lately? Religionists have been murdering religionists since the beginning of time. You also said "Also, you appear to draw a line between atheism and opposition to religion. In all honesty, while I acknowledge the fact of the difference, it is a comparatively small one." This is an important distinction. it is a huge difference as not all atheists hate or are opposed to religios belief yet the articles I have mentioned would lead the reader to belive otherwise. Rejecting theism does not mean being anti-religious. To say "I don't believe in any god(s) is not equal to "I hate religion" or I am against religion or theism.

The reason I have brought this to the project page is I need to know if the project codones articles like this. If it does then obviously I need to spend my efforts elsewhere. If conflating athiesm with genocide is considered encyclopedic then I'll fold my hand. But again, that is the sort of thing I expect from conservapedia and not Wikipedia. At least conservapedia uses the phrase "militant atheism" to make a distinction. Don't get me wrong, their article is mostly crap. And thought Richard Dawkins views religion as a delusion, does that mean he wants to see religion wiped off the map? Does he call for the imprisonment of religionists? Does he think belief in god should be outlawed. When I read him I get the sense he thinks religion is nonsense and that no thinking person would adopt it. I don't see him advocating genocide, or suggesting people should not be allowed to believe in gods. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian, I too was concerned about the assumption of a lot of people who seem to connect communism and totalitarianism to atheism. However, I also considered the massive amounts of effort that would be needed to separate the two... which is something I really wouldn't want to undertake. I generally tend to stay away from controversial articles, as I find the arguing and politics necessary to edit them tedious and a waste of time. The fact remains that people will connect communist atrocities with atheists, as people will connect religious atrocities (such as the crusades) with christians. It is a slippery slope when you start talking about people's motivations, intentions, and reasonings behind such atrocities, and whether or not they were "true" atheists or christians. So if I must accept the conflation of atheists with communists in order to accept the conflation of religious people with atrocities such as religious wars, abortion doctor killings, and cult suicides (which I do)... then so be it. What concerns me right now is the apparent bias of Criticism of Christianity, which gives absolutely no mention of christian atrocities, and currently reads like a christian apologetics article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Atheism

I came across Spiritual Atheism, and noticed it was new, only edited by one primary editor, and not incorporated with the existing series of articles on atheism. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case you were unaware of it. What you do with this knowledge is now in your hands;) (crossposted to the main Atheism article) -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, a new user created Category:Criticism of atheism which had a ton of irrelevant articles in it. Things related to abortion and evolution, yet didn't mention atheism anywhere. I haven't finished going through it to clean it up, so I'd appreciate another pair of eyes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never dealt with category deletion before - is there any reason not to nominate this? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the conversation just above this one, there is no reason to delete notable topics (or categories) simply because they were poorly maintained. Is there a category similar to Category:Criticism of atheism already, because if there isn't I think this should stay and could certainly get populated with relevant entries. I haven't looked at the other entry yet, but I wanted to weigh in on the category.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few similar categories, actually. See the categories and articles in the Category:Criticism of religion. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the term 'weak atheism' push a POV?

I've been in discussion with an editor over whether the term weak atheism should be used in articles. His stance (if I've interpreted him correctly) is that use of the term constitutes a POV violation, as it tacitly asserts that the broad definition of atheism is the 'correct' one. He reasons that for a person to be described as a weak atheist, he must also be an atheist, and many people wouldn't consider weak atheists as atheists.

I disagree with him. The meaning of weak atheist isn't a straightforward combination of the meanings of weak and atheist - it's a conceptual whole that has to be learned, either from definition or from context. We see this all the time in language. Nobody objects to Christian science, despite that it's not science by any standard definition. Nobody objects to pro-life, despite that it's far more specific than its composition would suggest. The whole point of a term like weak atheism is to avoid having to take a stance on what atheism means, and while I can see that it's sometimes better to describe the stance in full rather than use a potentially unfamiliar term, I don't think there's any neutrality issue with its use.

Could anyone comment? It's gotten to the point where a third opinion would be pretty useful. Ilkali (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a blanket answer on this issue. So weak atheist can be used in many cases to include agnostics, for example, agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny uses the term weak atheist (or was it negative atheist) in precisely the meaning you want here. So although Kenny has written essays like "Why I'm not an atheist" he has no problems with these composite terms. On the other hand, it really depends on the context. On biographies of people, we should go by self-identification, or only use the narrow definition that is universally accepted.

So while I don't think the term is POV-pushing as such, it is much preferable to use whatever words people use about themselves, or other authoritative people use about them. Not sure if this helps, Merzul (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, identifying people as weak atheists is a whole can of worms that I'm trying not to open right now. One step at a time, etc. The editor's position is apparently that any use of the term weak atheist (presumably outside of the article defining it) constitutes an NPOV violation, and I'm hoping to get that dispute resolved before anything else. Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, my personal opinion is that you need not desperately avoid the term, if for example, you are paraphrasing a source that uses it. Perhaps also, when you are writing an article on a topic, where many notable experts do use the term, you can probably use it when discussing their work, arguments, or positions. I would, however, strictly refrain from introducing this term myself in any context where the sources do not use it. Much more opinions are needed on this, but mine is clearly that not all uses automatically constitute NPOV-violations. Merzul (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali misunderstood my position. I did not advocate avoiding the term altogether, though I opposed adopting the term in preference to the alternative POV that the position to which it is meant to refer is not atheism at all. In particular, I opposed applying the term weak atheist to persons who merely lack belief in deities (and are not otherwise reliably identified as atheists), as there is significant disagreement as to whether this position is a type of atheism at all. If a person calls themselves a weak atheist, then I consider that adequate for including them on the list, and use of the term to describe them is perfectly appropriate, and not POV.

Thank you, Merzul, for your input on the List of atheists talk page. Input from other members of this WikiProject is needed now more than ever, as there are many changes brewing, including a campaign for featured list status, and a possible merger with the agnostics, humanists, and other secularists lists. Nick Graves (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"In particular, I opposed applying the term weak atheist to persons who merely lack belief in deities". That's what a weak atheist is, Nick! Any instance of weak atheist denotes people who merely lack belief in deities, because that's what the term means. It seems you want to rob it of that meaning and define it as 'a person who identifies as a weak atheist'. Ilkali (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the page of weak and strong atheism could use a lot of work, so I would personally try to avoid using the term too much. Most people, including me, do not find it particularly immediately understandable, and such statements which inhibit understanding should be avoided. If however the term is explicitly applied to people in reliable sources, or possibly as a self description, then that would be a different matter. But I would avoid the term in any other instances. Other, clearer, terms are generally available, and when they aren't perhaps a more detailed description would be useful. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Dutch atheists

In intend to create a list of all notable Dutch atheists. The List of atheists article is way too long and yet very incomplete. That's why I want to create this list. I am Dutch myself and have access to sufficient reliable sources. I think I could list at least 100 notable dutchmen. When finished, it might look like another list of mine, List of Dutch vegetarians. My idea is to use a table with four columns: Name, Dates, Very Short Bio, Quote confirming atheism and note to reference. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd very much like to hear it. Kind Regards, Baldrick90 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your list of Dutch vegetarians is very nice! Have you looked at Talk:List of atheists, where discussions of layout and possible options are being considered. In the end, we don't even need to be consistent, that's the nice thing about Wikipedia. I'd much rather you give us such a nice list rather than spending years agreeing on exact technical detail, but on the other hand some discussion on that page might be useful before setting out. Nice work, Merzul (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction. I have added a reaction on the topic 'what to do with the List of atheists article' (See [1]) and after thinking it through I am not sure If I'm gonna continue, at least for now. I reached the conclusion a list of atheists by nationality is problematic, so I guess I'll wait it out and see whatever consensus we may reach. Do you have an idea? Greetings, Baldrick90 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Barnstar

I want a Wikiproject barnstar to award User:Oolon Colluphid for his enthusiastic work on the list of atheists, but we don't have one. I created something that looks like this:

		The Invisible Pink Barnstar
		Here is my first crude version, the image needs to be made more pink I think, but my skills with transparency effects are not that good.

Can someone help make this nicer, or are there other ideas for a WikiProject barnstar/award? Merzul (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine as is. I'm also pleased that you chose a reference to the original and genuine atheist deity (MPBUHNFAE), instead of this false new idol called the flying spaghetti monster. Nick Graves (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Input

If I could get some input at Talk:H._L._Mencken#Contradiction_2, it'd be much appreciated. Leaving this note as Atheism was identified as one of the Wikiprojects in the article's scope. Daniel (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox nominated

User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend, my atheist userbox, has been recently nominated for deletion. I would sincerely appreciate any input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend. Thank you, +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC Buddhism

NPOV dispute. Peter jackson (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism and Sam Harris

I can't make any more edits today because I might be violating 3RR so I thought I'd bring it over here and hope a neutral third party might clarify this.

The article has a section detailing the role of atheism in totalitarian regimes. It has a criticism by Dinesh D'Souza going on about Pol Pot, and then it has a rebuttal by Sam Harris, which states that "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok." Fine. This is a direct rebuttal to the accusation about atheism being responsible for people like Pol Pot and Stalin, and its perfectly sourced.

User:Stuthomas4 then adds "Furthermore in his book "The End Of Faith", Harris states that religion is by far "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present." I thought this was unneccessary, and wrote in the history that "There already IS a rebuttal by the same person that directly confronts the atheism/dictator controversy" and "its not even a rebuttal about the criticism about atheism. Its just a statement that religion is responsible. Sam Harris's initial statement is more than enough". All Stuthomas4 has said is that "It is indeed a rebuttal. Leave my edit alone."

So I was wondering is if the intial edit was right and if the additonal quote by Harris is necessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 201 articles are assigned to this project, of which 99, or 49.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Wpa}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bible quotes

I've been working on Discrimination against atheists a lot recently, including meging it with Persecution of atheists. Someone created an Iran section and mentioned Apostasy, which I thought deserved a mention in the article. Apostasy is a criticism of Islam so if we were to mention that, it would need to be in a section specifically about Islam. We know that countries typically don't follow religious scripture to the letter (probably because this is impossible due to the contradictions!), even if they consider themselves religious states. Therefore, I would mention Apostasy in a section about scripture, thereby avoiding the WP:SYNTH implication that countries considering themselves "Islamic" must execute atheists.

Then I thought, "if you're going to mention violence in scripture, you've gotta go Old Testament." So really, the whole project in my mind has turned into the collection of a bunch of biblical quotes that are dicriminatory against non-believers (including atheists).

I don't think I can find a "reliable" source labeling each quote as discriminatory against atheists, even the really obvious ones. skepticsannotatedbible.com is basically where I'm finding each quote, but I expect if I published using them as a source, it would be challenged as "unreliable." I want to include as many quotes as I can to demonstrate that this is a consistent theme in scripture. I can easily find a reliable source for the quote itself, it's the interpretation that I'm worried about.

Really, I have two questions.

• How do I include quotes as "discriminatory" without doing WP:OR?
• Since I'm finding so many quotes, should I include them all at Discrimination against atheists or make an entirely new article and link from there? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point that many theistic holy texts are not particularly supportive of atheism would count as "obvious deduction"; at least, I see no other reasonable interpretation of, for instance, If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (2 John 1:10) (from your list). The full list certainly does not belong at the Discrimination article, though List of anti-atheist Bible verses might be viable. A better repository would probably be wikiquote. For your specific problem, you might try the approach of presenting notable examples where prominent Christians use such verses to promote intolerance; even better would be notable criticisms of such uses. This has the added advantage of avoiding the 'oh sure, but nobody reads that bit or interprets it that way' argument. Of course, through all of this you would need to be careful not to imply 'all persons who describe themselves as [X] believe or should believe [Y]'. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the article idea if only because Wikipedia is so much more popular than Wikiquote. I also like the idea of giving examples of uses of mentioned quotes, thanks. I took a look at the skepticsannotatedbible/Qur'an, and to my dismay, they didn't list all of the most notable, hypocritical quotes as they did for the bible! The section on the Qur'an might be a lot shorter as a result. I'll start googling versus and look for some controversies. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anything from a reliable source interpretting these quotes. I think whatever I do, I'll probably just stick to the really obvious ones directly mentioning non-believers, avoiding WP:OR by calling the bible a "Primary source" and saying that "killing or shunning atheists" is the definition of discrimination and doesn't need to be called so by a reliable source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the really beautiful hate-mongering spew seems to tend to lack proper citation to scripture, resorting instead to vague God says or in the Bible statements. These serve better as examples of stirring up trouble by people who are famous for being religious, which phenomenon I feel certain is already discussed (with due WP:PROMINENCE given to specific incidents without synthesis or libel) in the article.

Did you try searching by religious leader instead of by verse? Christian evangelist scandals would require less sorting than Category:Christian leaders or whatever; members of the Moral Majority, Catholic League (U.S.), or Westboro Baptist Church might also lead to the right sort of controversy (in decreasing order of relevance to the wider community). Searching by atheist or atheist organization (American Atheists, infidels.org, PZ Myers, &c.) would be another tack. GoogleNews for strings of the type: Sam.Harris "John 3:16" Phelps atheist -blog, but there about a Sagan of permutations there. Really, a good history book that analyzes and characterizes the sources for you would be the best source. GoogleBooks has negotiated limited but searchable previews of many modern works, as well as full text for public domain books. Atheism was a pretty hot button issue in late 19th century Britain, though I suspect that many of those books deal more with social and class strife.

As your punishment for inducing me to look at some of those pages, I am going to quote Wikipedia policy at you without checking the relevant contribution histories to see if you need reminding. Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha XD love the tags. I'll try searching by Christian leaders later Thursday or Friday, when I've got some time. For now, I've included the real obvious stuff at Discrimination against atheists. It hasn't been immediately reverted so it looks like everyone who has the page watch-listed (if there are any) don't object to the addition.

As a WP:Wikilawyer, I can't let a policy quote go unchallenged so take that! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Atheism

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jason Yeldell

This article needs serious help. If someone could go play with it, that would be appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Atheist bus campaign

Has an article been started on this? I'm thinking of starting one if not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheist Bus Campaign. Never mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Subscribed this project to User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription, by transcluding that box to the WikiProject main page. It has to be on the WikiProject main page for it to work - so please don't remove it - thank you! Cirt (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheism should no longer be featured article

The section about range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range) has some "citation needed" and "Clarify" tags. These should be adressed and the article should be removed from the featured list, until those tags are taken care of.--Nwinther (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

interesting rfc

Talk:Rick_Warren#Discussion--Cerejota (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Every WikiProject? That seems pretty stupid. Ilkali (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you say "overkill", boys and girls? I knew you could. LadyofShalott 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is much easier than just looking under Preferences for my watchlist to figure out which dozen WikiProjects I am watching. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

I have nominated Omnipotence paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New Atheism sources?

Hello. I've noticed that the current article on New atheism is fairly lacking - at present it only presents the views of people critical of the movement, and not those of the members themselves (never mind people who're described as members but disagree with the ideals attributed to the movement from outside). I'm finding it a little difficult to come up with sources to rectify this, though. I've read lots of blog posts about 'New Atheism' by atheists, but most of the published sources around seem to be books criticising the movement. Does anyone know of any good sources that can make things a little less one-sided? If so I'd love to hear from you on the talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with Dispute Resolution

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

• AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
• AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
• AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
• Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

• WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
• Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
• WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
• WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
• WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I can't understand why Christian violence has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I have nominated Douglas Adams for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I need help!

Hi folks, over the past few months I've learned quite a bit about how Wikipedia works, and how the editing process works. Most importantly, I've learned that on heated topics related to religious or other "sacred" topics, a certain POV can be pushed by editors to the point that it dominates the article. Mormonism, and the "LDS Article Wiki Project" is evidence of that. I've been getting PWNED by Mormons from the LDS wiki project that have dominated the West_Ridge_Academy article, a place that can be best described at this website: www.MormonGulag.com. Every time I make an edit, this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Storm_Rider reports me for revert wars and has me banned. He knows me from another Mormon-related website I participate on (although I don't know him) and his personal mission has become controlling this Wiki article and protecting the Mormon Church's image on Wikipedia. Any help or advice, or maybe the support of a prolific editor will even this out. Thanks. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this talk page really isn't the best place to ask about that. Please do not assume that editors here have a POV, since that really runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. You might want to consider registering, instead of editing as an IP. I've looked at your page, the other editor's page, and the article to which you refer. Neither you nor the other editor has been blocked. You have received warnings that are intended to stop things before they escalate to a block. Based on the article's edit history, it looks like the other editors have reasons to think the warnings you received were justified. If you feel the article has POV content problems, you should discuss it at the article's talk page, and if that does not work, you can start an RfC. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, you can raise it at WP:Editor assistance as a first step. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving List of atheists

Users who have edited atheism and like articles should be very familiar with the wide variety of definitions and complex typologies (e.g., weak vs. strong, implicit vs. explicit) in use for the term atheism, and the many connotations surrounding these definitions. This makes the term particularly ill-suited for a neutral, encyclopedic bio-listing, since it requires Wikipedia to (1) weigh in, for the list, on which definition is "best", in order to be consistent in our selection criteria; and (2) weigh in on which real-life people fit those criteria, and hence on the real-life views of people who may, for example, assert nonbelief in deities yet decry being called an "atheist". This is particularly legally problematic because we're using a term, "atheism", which some (including living persons) (perhaps unfairly) perceive as having a negative connotation, and have said they prefer not to be so labeled — yet we are currently labeling them as "atheists" because they are non-theists, and this broader definition seems to be the one we're really employing on the lists, to avoid the shades of grey of using 'strong atheism' or the like as a definition.

Fortunately, there seems to be an easy solution to this problem. Simply transfer the list to List of nontheists, a synonym for '(broad/weak) atheism' lacking the ambiguity and connotations of atheism, thus ideally suited for an NPOV encyclopedia listing nonbelievers in deities. There is currently a very large, and growing, support for this move on Talk:List of atheists, but I wanted to alert this broader community of editors to the discussion in order to have their recommendations heard, since List of atheists serves as the hub for all our non-theistic biographies. As such, feel free to join in on the talk page if you support or oppose such a move.

I realize I may be putting the move at risk by appealing to a group of editors who will obviously have something of a favorable opinion for the term "atheism" ahead of time. :) But our discussion and decision can only benefit from hearing more perspectives, and I trust you'll carefully consider policies like WP:NPOV and WP:LIVE before simply condemning the term 'nontheist' for being a bit less common. Sometimes utility and neutrality demand a slightly drier, less colloquially ubiquitous term for listings of people—especially when its meaning will be even more simple and self-evident, even to those who have never seen the word! -Silence (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Silence, for bringing the potential move to this project's attention. Interested editors can get an idea of what the renamed and tweaked list might look like by visiting User:Nick Graves/List of nontheists. Please be bold in editing this sandbox, if you see ways in which it can be improved. Nick Graves (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the move is inappropriate, I believe the best solution would be to simply maintain a list of verifiable atheists, perhaps with sublists for weak/strong to the extent that this can be verified. A separate list of verifiable agnostics, and lists of theraveda buddhists or other classes which one might judge should otherwise fall in the 'nontheist' category. Having 'list of atheists' link to a list which includes persons that are not atheist is problematic. Unomi (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Atheism Article

Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Global Atheist Convention

Please add the 2010 Global Atheist Convention to the project. -- Marawe (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV discussion regarding Criticism of Judaism

A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article. The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times. (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material). --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the implication that criticism of a particular religion would necessarily fall within the area of interest of this particular Wikiproject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the atheism project is no more the counter for Judiasm than criticism of basketball should come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. tedder (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See the previous section. Why would this project care? tedder (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism vs Nontheism

There has been some question of whether Atheism and Nontheism are distinct entities or should be merged. Please weigh-in here. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are they seriously going to merge nontheism with atheism? I am absolutely shocked and amazed. This project should be trying to develop these distinctions, not let them get plowed under. Greg Bard 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Improve relationships between anti/non-religion/atheism articles?

It looks like there may be some work to do to improve the integration of some related articles:

• Antireligion
• Antitheism
• Atheism
• Criticism of religion.
• Irreligion
• Nontheism

When one reads the articles, it looks they were all written by different editors, without acknowledgment of the other articles. For example: I can imagine a reader, interested in learning about the drawbacks to religion finding Irreligion. The reader may think that that article is the article on atheism or Criticism of religion. It looks like these articles were all written by distinct editors as stand-alone articles, and not much effort has yet been made to link them together to help readers find more information. I'm not suggesting that they be merged (because they are indeed all unique subjects, and the content is accurate and correct) but it looks like work is needed to help the readers jump from one to another. The solution could be as simple as adding footer templates, sidebar templates, SeeAlso lists, "main" templates within sections, and so on (yes, there are some wikilinks between the articles, but they tend to be embedded within sentences).

(By the way: it is not my intention to offend any editors that worked on the above articles: I know how hard it is to get a single article into good shape ... and the task of integrating a set of related articles is an order of magnitude harder: the "herding cats" thing :-)

Here's a specific suggestion: could the "Series on Atheism" sidebar template be extended to include all the above articles? Since some of those articles don't fit within the strict definition of "Atheism" perhaps the scope of the "Series" template could be expanded to

• "Series on atheism and irreligion" or
• "Series on atheism and antireligion" or
• "Series on atheism, antireglion, and related topics"

And then we add that expanded "Series on atheism and antireligion" sidebar template to the above articles that do not yet have it? That seems like it would really help users navigate. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to those

• Religious skepticism (should be either expanded or merged)
• Skepticism#Religious_skepticism
• Militant atheism
• New atheism
• Scientism#Relevance_to_the_science_and_religion_debate
• Agnostic atheism
• Weak and strong atheism
• Implicit atheism
• Apatheism
• Metaphysical naturalism (main article links could be used for some of these sections)
• Atheism and religion
• Faith and rationality

This discussion, however, might be better placed at the WikiProject Atheism Jess ^talk _cs 18:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I'll move this discussion there. Thanks for the suggestion. [Move was done]. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I understand that there are many who view Atheism in the pure sense of a philosophy, and hence they may object to "diluting" the "Series on Atheism" sidebar with the inclusion of tangential articles. My suggestion should be understood as a simple matter of helping readers (who, we may assume, are not experts in philosophy or theology) to find alternate articles which may be better suited to the research they are doing. --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Following up on the above ideas, here is a sketch of what the sidebar could look like. The additional topics are simply placed at the bottom of the existing Atheism template, using the group title "Related topics" which should make it clear that they do not strictly fall within the definition of Atheism. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Standardized "ism" templates

I have always wanted to get a standardized format for all the templates about various isms. To this end I usually organize with the following types of sections:

• Academic areas
• Concepts
• Theories
• People
• Literature
• Related

I would very much like to bring into sharper relief the distinction between concepts and theories, as relfected in the category structure. I think all of the above articles could fit wonderfully into such an organization. Greg Bard 16:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The Atheism category is at Category:Atheism, and the articles listed therein are not well represented in the current Atheism sidebar template. The sidebar template does a good job representing the philosophical aspects, but is weaker in the other areas you enumerate. For example, a "People" section could include a few prominent atheists; and the Literature section could include a few famous tracts/books about Athesism. Am I understanding your proposal correctly? --20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added "People" and "Literature" sections to the draft sidebar template (shown at right). Greg's outline above also includes "Theories" and "Academic areas", which would require some careful thought to integrate those into the upper portion of that template. If anyone wants to have a go at it, feel free to edit that draft template directly (click the "e" button at the bottom of the template). --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did make a major change in that direction. Perhaps we should think about a template for the bottom of the page instead like the philosophy templates (logic, ethics, etcetera.Greg Bard 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur on the footer template idea. I wish WP had a tool set up where we could edit just one file, and the tool would generate both a sidebar template and a footer template from the same source file. Barring that, we can get this draft sidebar template into good shape, then just copy it and manually create a footer template. --Noleander (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the latest draft:

1) It may be wise to re-arrange the order so the "Theory" section is on top, since most of the articles in the "Theory" section seem more essential to the topic, whereas the "Academic" articles are more "related to".

2) It is a bit long. Maybe the font could be smaller; or turn off the boldface.

--Noleander (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Religion", "Science", and "Theology" are much too general for the Academic areas sections. Also, 'People" should probably be "Atheists". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the "People" -> "Atheists" so I made that change. --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good time for a trial of this alternate template in the articles? It is far from perfect, but putting it in would get more eyeballs on it, and hence more ideas for improvement. If strong objections ensue, we can always revert to the original. Thoughts? --14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any objections or comments, so I'll go ahead and put this alternative sidebar template into the articles, and see if we can get more input on how to improve it. --Noleander (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Color theme has insufficient contrast?

The light brown background color (#D2B48C) used in the template is so light, it is hard to read the white words on them (for example: on the "Theories" group title). But notice how well the dark blue words show up for the group titles that are wikilinks [edit: some titles were changed to black, see post below]. This same color theme is also extensively in the Atheism portal. Anyone else think the color contrast should be stronger? Maybe it is just my computer monitor. If there is consensus to improve the contrast, perhaps it would be simplest to just change the overlaid text color from white to black? or to dark brown? Whatever the decision is (if there ends up being any consensus), the same theme should be applied to the Atheism portal, of course. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate, I changed some of the group-title text from white to black in the draft sidebar above; but I left "Theories" the original white. I also made "Concepts" dark brown to see what that looks like. The black (in "Related Topics") stands out more; but the dark brown (in "Concepts") seems more artistic. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Of the three, I think the black is easiest to read (and white the hardest). Maybe use a darker brown, something in between what's there now and the black?LadyofShalott 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I put a new, darker brown in "Academic Areas" group title (and left the original medium brown in "Concepts" group title). The "Academic Areas" dark brown may be a happy medium combining good contrast with aesthetics. --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it! LadyofShalott 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All group titles now use the new dark brown (in the draft sidebar above). The two titles that are wikilinks (Atheists and Literature) appear as another color, of course. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion to template Talk page

It is probably best if further discussion on the sidebar template be conducted at Template_talk:Atheism2, since that is where editors will probably go, now that the alternate template is in the articles. --Noleander (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A new sidebar template has been proposed. It can be viewed at Template_talk:Atheism2 - please comment there. Thansk, --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Need better image for Irreligion sidebar

The new sidebar Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar has been added to several articles within the Template:Irreligion footer template (but not the pure "Atheism" articles, which still use the original Template:atheism2 template). Regarding the new sidebar, the image at the top of the sidebar is the word "Atheism" and perhaps a better image could be found that encompasses all the topics within the Irreligion scope. I threw one together (shown at right) but it looks a bit simplistic. Any other ideas? Below it is shown within the sidebar. Superseded by discussion below. Removing sidebar from this Talk page to minimize confusion. --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like it. I like the archaeological "atheos" one better, because it looks more scholarly, and it doesn't bother me that it only refers to one specific subset of irreligion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks pretty ugly. One drawback to the "atheos" image is that it is written in Greek, and not many users will know what it is saying. In the context of the Atheism article, or within the Template:atheism2 template it is not too bad, because the word "Atheism" is right above it, so people can figure it out. But in the Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar template, many readers may not have a clue what the image is. That is why it may be wise to search for an alternative image for the Irreligion sidebar. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge two similar sidebar templates?

There are two sidebar templates that are very similar: Template:Atheism2 and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar. See discussion of possible merger at Talk page Template Talk:Atheism2 --Noleander (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in the evolution of these templates to a more concise form... we can merge irreligion and atheism, and take care of a great many other topics by having just two for all of them: Template:Philosophy of religion and Template:Religious philosophy. This approach has the advantage of attaching the main organization to an academic area. Take a look at Template:Logic and its compartments for an idea of what I had in mind. Greg Bard 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg: thanks for the feedback. Would you mind posting that suggestion over at Template Talk:Atheism2 so the discussion is all in one place? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please post any replies/comments/ideas at Template Talk:Atheism2. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of nontheism

I find this proposal to be completely out-of-line: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism.Greg Bard 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Not an atheist topic, but a skeptical one, and we're getting a strong traditional bias in recent edits. I thought someone here might be interested.

For the past two years, there has been consensus that a reference to the Ritual Decalogue is appropriate in the intro at Ten Commandments. That has now been deleted, with two editors edit warring to keep it that way.

Background: taking the obvious reading (which most sources assume without comment), the Pentateuch only identifies the Ten Commandments (TCs) in two places, Exodus 34 and Deut 4-5. (Some more skeptical sources maintain that only Ex. 34 is unambiguously called the TCs.) However, the text in Ex. 34 is not the TCs of Deut 5 and traditional understanding, but rather is a parallel of the Covenant Code. (Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk, etc.) The prior consensus was to mention this fact in the intro, with a link to the other article. However, a couple editors are now claiming this is a "fringe" view and therefore undue, despite references as mainstream as the Oxford Annotated Bible. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't wast your time. There was considerable discussion and it is obvious that the article is about "the ten commandments." The current introduction is the consensus version although there was a discussion that lasted for several weeks in which kwame was the only person unsatisfied with the duscussion.

The real problem is that the concet of a "ritual decalogue" is tied up with a concept called "the ethical decalogue," and these twinned concepts come out of a specific theory within critical scholarship, a theory that is significant but not mainstream. Critical scholars moreover use the term "covenant code" differently. The real problem is not in the article on the ten commandments, which is just what it says it is. The problem is that Wikipedia does not have a good article that covers the various debates among critical scholars, in context, concerning the Ethical and ritual decalogues, nor do we have a good article that covers the various debates among critical scholars, in context, concerning the covenant code. The articles we curently have are a mess, based on misreadings of tertiary sources, and misrepresent the scholarship. We need articles, but good ones.

I do not know why kwame, rather than taking time to read the major works of scholarship and improve the relevant articles, instead spends time disrupting the Ten Commandments article. It is not the way to build a better encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That folks, is exactly the problem. There are, BTW, two of us that want to continue the old consensus, one that actually was a consensus. A passage that has been commented on since the 5th century to mean what it says (that Ex34 is the TCs) is claimed to mean something else, and all the RS's in the world won't make the obvious relevant to some editors. An issue that is larger than the RD hypothesis is portrayed as only that hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not a very productive place to discuss this. Perhaps you might consider a content RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory page name

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on in-text attribution

Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Atheism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see any objections to those that have been included, although I would welcome any opinions about articles others might think deserve to be included. The articles marked with cleanup tags are Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, and Humanism. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of (religion Z)" pertains to this wikiproject?

Recently, the Mormonism and violence and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk pages were modified to state that they are of Mid-importance to Wikiproject Atheism. I personally don't really see a direct connection; also, similar religious criticism pages, such as Criticism of the Catholic Church and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, are not (yet?) included in the project. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is not the anti-religion- in other words, it shouldn't be the counterpoint to a pro-religion viewpoint by a given religion. Including WikiProject Atheism makes less sense than including {{WikiProject Common Sense}} or {{WikiProject Philosophy}}. tedder (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think those articles should be included in the Atheism project. The Atheism philosophy, narrowly construed, would not include it. But the Atheism project is broader than atheism per se: the project includes many related topics, such as agnosticism and hostility towards religion. Some of these included topics are contrary to, or mutually exclusive with, atheism. I'm not saying the atheism philosophy includes them, but the WP Atheism project does. For instance, the Atheism project includes articles such as Agnosticism, God is not great and Criticism of Christianity. Why? Because WP projects need to be broad: otherwise many articles would not be in a project. You may say "that is silly, agnosticism is not atheism" - but that can be mitigated by setting the "project importance" value to "low" for articles that are just tangentially related to the Atheism. Finally, including the articles in the Atheism project is not suggesting that atheists embrace the attitude of all the articles: the project is simply a way of helping to manage articles. Finally, note that the Atheism sidebar template Template:Atheism Sidebar includes a large variety of topics outside atheism, including Criticism of religion ... certainly the Atheism project should include all the articles in its sidebar template. --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I really think you should get some confirmation from other members of the WikiProject before you go mass-adding Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Judaism, and criticism of (religion X) to it. You're not even on the project's list of participants yet. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue at hand (as you know: any editor is free to improve WP without belonging to a special club :-) We shouldn't confuse the Atheism project with the atheism article. A WP project can, and should, include articles that are just incidentally related to the project's main theme, and that is what the "Low" project importance rating is for. Here are some articles that have been within the Atheism project for a long time: Criticism of religion, Criticism of Christianity, Irreligion, Buddhism , Agnosticism, Humanist Canada, Opium of the people, The Genius of Charles Darwin, World Pantheist Movement, Adevism, Pablo Picaso, Faith and rationality, Morality without religion, Infidel, Secularity. You cannot be suggesting that we remove Criticism of Religion (or its content-fork subarticle Criticism of Christianity) from the project, are you? Many atheists, of course, have no negative attitudes towards religion; but many atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens and God is not great) do have negative attitudes towards religion (which they often state rather forcefully). I'd say nearly half (just guessing) of all notable atheists have criticized religions in a very significant way. Indeed, many people became atheists precisely because of the attitudes and events described in the "Criticism of someReligion" articles. In fact, criticism of religion is prominently mentioned in the atheism article in the section atheism#Dangers of religions. But if you feel strongly that the "Criticism of someReligion" articles are only remotely related to atheism, I have no objection to changing their rating from "Mid" to "Low" importance (except Criticism of religion, which should stay "High" importance, where it has been for a long time). --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful, encyclopedic information to our readers, not to generate clubs for editors to join. Broadly, I agree with tedder's view above. That said, the question of what should or should not be part of a project is of zero interest to our readers, even less interest than what categories a page is in. These are the kinds of things that Wikipedians argue about, with about as much usefulness as arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If a page is listed as part of a WikiProject, and that brings some more editors to work on it, all for the good. If it's in the sidebar template, and helps a reader locate another page, that's great. But, as has been happening recently in this talk, when editors post here hoping to canvass editors who are on a particular "side" in some religion/irreligion content dispute, that's toxic. You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy rye bread, and you don't have to be an atheist to edit pages in this project. Don't assume that everyone here has a particular belief or disbelief. And if anyone disagrees with me, I suggest that they be burned at the stake! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've said except one thing: you say that posting in the Atheism project to solicit input on RfCs or other disputes is "toxic" ... but that is assuming that the poster had a inappropriate motive. We do not know what the poster's motives are, and it is bad faith to assume the poster is trying to recruit like-minded supporters. In fact, the poster may simply be trying to get more input in a stale RfC. Because canvassing individual editors is prohibited, the WP canvassing policy encourages editors to instead solicit input from projects. For example, if you look above in this Talk page, we see user SlimVirgin making some innocuous RfC posts. I think that is great: RfCs are an early stage in dispute resolution, and notifying relevant projects is a good thing. The Atheism project is certainly relevant to RfC-type disputes that relate to criticisms of religion. Let's be candid: the Atheism project has been rather dormant the past couple of years: over 75% of its articles are rated grade "C" or below. Biting editors that venture into the project's Talk page will not make the project more active or useful. --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I said was "toxic" was worded a bit differently than the way you summarized it. And I wasn't directing it at anyone in particular, more to everyone in general. Now, to the stake! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

All I was trying to say is that it's a bad idea to go changing the scope of a WikiProject without consulting with people who claim to pertain to it. I'm not trying to bite, but three people (admittedly none that claim to be part of the project; though all you have to do is put your name on the list) have now expressed the opinion that these new articles do not belong to the scope of WikiProject Atheism. If you want to create a "Criticism of Religion" WikiProject, then I'm sure these articles would be perfectly acceptable in that scope. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot that's being said here, but I'd like to also point out there is a line somewhere when pages are included in too many projects to be useful. In fact, including too many tangentially related articles in a project can be inhibitive to editors finding material directly related to the subject they wish to edit. For instance, there is a major difference between Criticism of religion (which necessarily originates from a secular stance), and Criticism of mormonism (which necessarily includes every other denomination of Christianity). The former is clearly related to the "atheism topic", whereas without specific references to it, the latter is not.

I don't feel that all "criticism of religion X" articles should be included in the project, but it seems clear to me that those which touch on issues of atheism should be, due to their content. As an example, a "criticism of Janism" article would probably not be related to this project due to lack of explicitly secular criticism, but Criticism of Islam would, considering the backlash from secular sources due to muslim terrorism. As TryptoFish aptly points out, this is not an issue to go to war over... but it would also be nice to have some discretion in which articles we include in which topics. Jess_talk|_edits 18:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur there there is a dividing line somewhere. A good criterion for inclusion in the project (focusing on criticism articles) might be: "If notable atheists have discussed the topic in a significant way in their writings, then it is suitable for the Atheism project". Some articles that probably meet that criteria include: Criticism of religion, Religious terrorism, Christianity and violence, Criticism of Christianity, Islam and violence, Judaism and violence, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Bible. In addition, the "Criticism of someReligion" articles are WP:Content forks of Criticism of religion, and so it is sensible to include them in the project also. Note that the "Importance" rating could be set to "Low" to indicate that the relationship is not very strong. If there are topics such as Criticism of Jainism or Criticism of Buddhism that have never been significant topics in atheistic writings, I concur that they should not be in the project. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question of whether Criticism of Mormonism should be included (possibly with "Low" importance) in this project, I note that God is not great by C. Hitchens mentions "Joseph Smith" six times, and "Mormons" five times. Of course, all the references are critical. Also, R. Dawkins in The God Delusion mentions J. S. critically. I'm not saying this is overwhelming (although I have not really tried to look for additional sources) but I think these sources do justify inclusion with "low" importance. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not think that articles pertaining to criticism of individual religious systems should be included in the "atheism" categories or project. In general, there are any number of ways to criticize any religious group: the article on Criticism of the Catholic Church, for instance, can not only be counted as relating to atheism, but also to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Judaism, Thelema, Scientology, Falun Gong, neopaganism, the Orthodox Churches, the Reformation churches, and the Restorationist churches, and every other separate religion out there. The atheism banner, in all honesty, is no more relevant to that article than any of the banners of the other religion projects would be, and placing the atheism banner on those articles would be likely to lead to the possibility of atheistic material being possibly overstressed in that article. The banners are meant to be placed only on articles which are clearly and directly relevant to the given project, and there is no good reason to believe that atheism is more important to those articles than any of the other extant religious movements or religion projects. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Islam, with a current "Atheism" banner on it, is not developing very well and is poorly written IMO compared to other "Criticism" articles. It needs help. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Template talk:Jesus

There's an RfC here on whether to include Jesus myth theory on the template. Another editor posted the RfC to the Christianity wikiproject, [2] so I'm posting it here for balance. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month?

Do we have something like that? I think this Project would be improved if we had something like that, which we could use to focus on specific articles. --Havermayer (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Culture movement

The Ethical Culture movement entry needs serious cleanup, especially with attention to using reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The entry is currently at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical Culture. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Stefanelli

A new editor recently created a page on Al Stefanelli. Outside of the obvious best selling authors I'm not sure which Atheist activists are notable today. Can someone with some knowledge of this hop on over to the page and take a look? If Stafanelli is notable enough to have an entry the current entry will need a lot of work. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD

I have submitted an AfD on the entry. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Stefanelli. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Secularism

I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Darrel Ray - help flesh out the page

I just created the Darrel Ray page. Not sure if the Article Alerts bot will catch it, so I thought I'd post here. Any help in fleshing out the page is welcome! -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm surprised this project doesn't have a User:AlexNewArtBot task. I can help, since I just finished recoding it. tedder (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User-boxes and civility

Hi!

Would you consider removing "official" status from the pink unicorn user-box, please, for consistency with your mission-statement welcoming non-atheists?

Would you also consider kindly moving the collection of atheist user-boxes to a secondary page?
I recognize that such user-boxes are of great interest to many or most potential members of this project. However, I am unaware of similar user-boxes on other projects. The statistics project has no user-boxes mocking lottery-ticket buyers, and the mathematics/logic projects have no user-boxes mocking (unconscious) practitioners of paraconsistent logic, etc.

:-)

The problem is that featuring so many such user-boxes may collide with your welcoming non-atheists.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion surrounding the recent RfA comments and their fallout, and I agree (in part) that these user boxes need to be discussed. I'm glad that the most obnoxious one has just been removed from this page. I will also note that the guidelines for user boxes specifically encourage boxes to express what one supports, rather than what one opposes, and that's very good advice. I'd look favorably on some further, selective, pruning of the non-official ones listed here.

But I'm puzzled by the concern about the one showing the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's not nasty or negative. I don't see any reason to delete it, and would oppose doing so. I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the thinking is that it appears to imply that beliefs held by some religions are like the IPU (in the sense of being like a "fairy tale"), but in fact the IPU (like similar constructs, such as Russell's teapot) really isn't an insult. Rather, it illustrates a philosophical concept, and, the way it is shown in the user box, really isn't adversarial at all, unless someone chooses to read something into the user box that isn't intrinsically there. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The invisible pink unicorn is designed to be humorous and self-congratulatory for atheists, at their superior thinking over superstitious/religious people. I believe that the other "unofficial" user-boxes may be more unwelcoming.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. If it's possible to read that much into the Invisible Pink Unicorn userbox, the same could be said for every userbox. For instance, displaying the statistics userbox indicates their superior thinking over non-statistics-oriented people. Or people from Sweden displaying the WPSweden userbox are indicating their superiority over the rest of the world. tedder (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sweden project does not have a user-box mocking Norwegians or Danes; the statistics project does not have a userbox mocking lottery ticket buyers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How does the invisible pink unicorn infobox mock? I'm having trouble following your logic. tedder (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you take the stance that God is an almighty, supreme, real entity, then comparing him to a non-existent and invisible mammal^(?) is indeed mockery. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, User:Seb. Nonetheless, hoisting the "pink unicorn" makes fun of religion, where a reference to

• Wisdom, J., 1944. “Gods,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 45: 185–206.

does not.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They're userboxes & nothing more. If one dislikes them, then ignore them. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy bars uncivil userboxes; see Wikipedia:Userbox#Content_restrictions and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. In addition, this project needs to consider whether such userboxes are compatible with its statement welcoming non-atheists.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I think you're over-reacting, concerning the userbox-in-question. But, if you wanna delete (again), so be it. It's not something that I'll loose sleep over. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that atheism defines itself—in part—as a rejection of religion (yes, I know all about weak/strong, positive/negative and all of that, no need to go into that here) and, thus, anything that illustrates atheism is inevitably going to illustrate something that is disrespectful towards that which persons of faith hold very dear.

That doesn't make it incivil, necessarily. So let me try to draw a distinction. A user box saying, explicitly, that this user thinks religion is (insert insulting adjective here) is incivil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism is civil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism, and illustrated with an image that is, explicitly, negative with respect to religion (the word "God" crossed out, or a crucifix crossed out, or a star of David crossed out, etc.) is, I think, incivil. A user box saying that this user contributes to articles about atheism, and illustrated with an image that is, primarily, positive about atheism, but as such, implicitly critical of religion, well, that's civil, even if some users find the implicit criticism negative.

The IPU in the user box is a whimsical image, in a soft pink, and it is free of anything in the way of hostile content. Someone unfamiliar with the content could probably think it appropriate for WikiProject Fairy Tales. It's not saying anything is (insert insulting adjective here). To read insulting intent into it is like reading such intent into an image of the star of David on the grounds that it might offend Palestinians, or a cross, on the grounds that it might offend some Jews. Or some atheists! Personally, I find user boxes trivial, but I just do not see the incivility in this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish there is more than one problem with the pink unicorn. The pink unicorn is not just "implicitly critical," it is explicitly critical and in a manner that mocks religious belief. As such it is in the category of a explicitly negative symbol which according to your reasoning, when present on a userbox for this Wikiproject is uncivil. Besides this, it is also not in any way a universal symbol for the attitude taken by atheists towards religion. Yes, all atheists reject religion, but they do not all do so in a way that compares religious beliefs to fairy tales. So not only is this box uncivil, but it also attaches a very particular atheist attitude to a userbox that is supposed to cover a Wikiproject about atheism as subject matter. To that effect it is also divisive. Some may be offended by it or not agree with its message, and refuse to use it. So it divides Wikiproject members into two camps. One box should exist and there should be consensus at the Wikiproject to use that one box, and it shouldn't be uncivil either. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya'll (the deletionists) are over-reacting. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"The deletionists"? Overreacting? Can you please explain to me how the pink unicorn does not mock religious belief? I have no problem with a personal userbox that says, something like "I'm an atheist" and contains the pink unicorn. A little mockery is fine in personal self expression. But the atheism Wikiproject is not a Wikiproject for atheists, it is a Wikiproject for people interested in the topic, and as such should not have a userbox that some members and/or others in the Wikipedia community might take offense to. Members of this Wikiproject should not need to be associated with beliefs that mock religion. Do you disagree with that statement and if so why?Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is hard to parse and too wide. Howabout, "This project and its members while working on behalf of this project do not mock religion or irreligion" would be better. I prefer the simplier and positive "This project welcomes all persons wanting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheisim-related topics, regardless of their personal thoughts and beliefs".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion is irrelevant to me & so is its being or not being mocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you contributing to this conversation at all? Religion is irrelevant to my personal life too, but that doeesn't mean that I think that the beliefs held by those other than myself should be mocked in the userbox representing a Wikiproject. Seriously though, if you don't care then please just stay out of the conversation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really of two minds about the issue. On the one hand, I strongly agree with the idea that user boxes should be positive, not negative, and I also strongly agree that this WikiProject should be welcoming to all interested editors, not clubby or one-sided. Indeed, I've been uncomfortable with some of the more adversarial user boxes for a long time. As such, I welcome the better wording that Kiefer added to the page. For that matter, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not argue about decorations on user pages, and that could be a good argument to get rid of any user box that is divisive or uninviting, and just get on with editing. (And it has absolutely nothing to do with deletionism/inclusionism.)

On the other hand, I remain uncomfortable with the argument about the IPU specifically. I still think that simply showing the IPU in a user box is no more incivil (towards some persons of faith) than showing the star of David would be (towards some Palestinian persons), for example. If someone took Invisible Pink Unicorn to AfD on the grounds that the existence of the article, the fact that Wikipedia presents information about it, offends some persons, I'm confident that the outcome would be a snow "keep" per WP:NOTCENSORED. If an editor were to work on bringing that article up to Featured Article standards, and then stated on their user page that they had done so, it would be entirely appropriate and not incivil to do that. If they added a link to the page, still not incivil at all. If they added a small image (like the image in the user box) as well as that link, what would happen? I rather suspect that if the editor were to run for RfA, there would be one predictable oppose because of it, but there would also be a clear consensus against that oppose. Otherwise, there would be no valid reason to say that the editor was acting against policy. How, then, is the user box different? It isn't. Thus, although I'm generally very friendly to the idea of getting rid of silly user boxes from this page if those boxes make some editors feel less welcome, I think we need to be careful about starting down a road of letting people dictate removal of anything on the grounds of offensiveness, as opposed to incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The atheism portal's featured image of a pink unicorn discusses its satirical meaning. While it is less offensive than some of the (now removed) unofficial user-boxes, the pink unicorn does suggest that the project need not truly welcome theists. (I have seen no evidence that theists have ever been mistreated at this project, because of their beliefs.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as I see it there is a difference between satire and incivility. But how I see it, and how someone else sees it, is, well, in the eye of the beholder, especially for something that comes with such strong and personal feelings as does faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Related discussions

Aha. This seems to be coming out of the following discussions, some related to Keepscases's ongoing criticism of the Atheism userboxes: Keepscases userpage, ANI, Drmies RFA.

Can we at least centralize the WP:DRAMA and/or former horse-beating? It's taking place in at least four locations now, probably more. tedder (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedder, please let us focus on the user boxes, which is the issue relevant to this talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, here's my part of the discussion: Keep them all. There's nothing in them for anyone to be offended at who's not looking for an excuse to be offended. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove all userboxes except those specifically related to the Wikiproject

IMO all the userboxes should go. This is a Wikiproject focused on information about atheism and not a social group for atheists. Members of the wikiproject may or may not be atheists themselves. May I ask what userboxes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia content, but with personal self-expression have to do with a Wikiproject in the first place? The only user box that is worth retaining is the ones that say someone is a member of the Wikiproject (but not the one with the pink unicorn which again promotes self-expression of personal beliefs and not the subject matter under the purview of the project.) Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)\

Note: I do not mean "delete" them from Wikipedia, but simply, "remove" them from this Wikiproject. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking at other Wikiprojects, none of which promote personal group identifications or personal beliefs, I was BOLD and took all the "related" userboxes out. I'd like to remove the pink unicorn as well, but think there needs to be more discussion first. The pink unicorn is not a particularly common symbol of atheism, and indeed it refers to a negative view of religious belief as opposed to a positive view of atheism.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be... umm, umm, agnostic... as to whether this was a good move or not, but I suppose a case can be made that there isn't absolutely a need for user boxes to be listed on a WikiProject page at all. I note that some of the religion WikiProjects do not display user boxes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't userboxes per se, but userboxes that say, "I believe such and such." When I looked through some other Wikiprojects, including religious ones, I did not find any of those. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some mathematicians have user-boxes that state "I believe in the axiom of choice" or "Keep your large cardinal numbers to yourself", but they don't appear on the WikiProject Mathematics page. Smiling,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed that's the point. It doesn't look like any of these will be added back, so at least that is settled.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually added a few uncontroversial ones back. Users are encouraged to disclose potential COI, and the only way most people do this is through userboxes. COI aren't going to be an issue with Wikiproject Math or Wikiproject Trains, but this is a much more polarizing topic. Swarm ^X 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, WP:COI is not simply about one's personal beliefs or group affiliations. If you are an atheist you don't necessarily have a COI in editing this topic. You might have a bias, but then again so might someone who is religious. Indeed, a Christian is just as likely to have a bias on this topic as an atheist, so by this logic we should link to various religious user boxes too, in order to encourage people to label themselves in case they are biased? You see how that is untenable? Besides that the Wikiproject page isn't here for that purpose anyway. Take a look at other Wikiprojects, specifically the ones for different religions. They do not have these kinds of user boxes. I don't want to edit war but these boxes that have to do with individual beliefs or affiliations really need to go. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage anyone who's a member of a specific political or religious Wikiproject to disclose whether they're actually a member of that particular group. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist in Wikiproject atheism, for example, but we all have biases. And, while it would be excessive to include userboxes for every related viewpoint on the Wikiproject page, it would make perfect sense for a few directly related userboxes to be featured on a Wikiproject page. In fact, that you couldn't find any others doesn't mean it should be removed from this page, it should be the other way around! Swarm ^X 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I tend to think editors should do what they want to do, so if they want to do as Swarm suggests, whatever. But as noted below, I've deleted them. In hopes of satisfying both concerns (lotsa luck), I replaced them with a link to the collection of all such boxen, so that way anyone who wants to can select from the full menu, and anyone who feels unwelcome at this WikiProject will, I hope, feel less so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very sensible solution Tryptofish. Cheers for that.Griswaldo (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheism project userboxes - do they exclude certain groups?

Wikiproject Atheism appears to be the only Wikiproject that actively promotes userboxes that refer to a specific belief system or group identity. These "Related userboxes," found on the main page, are not about atheism as a subject matter, but atheism as a personal identity. IMO this promotes an atmosphere that excludes people who are not atheists from the project. IMO, Wikiprojects are not social clubs for people of certain groups, but projects that organize material on subject matters, and should not promote themselves as if outsiders are less welcome. Regulars at the project, who are themselves atheists I imagine, have reverted my efforts to remove these infoboxes. I would like to seek wider input on the matter from the rest of the community.Griswaldo (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This RfC was created when the Wikiproject page was in another state and refers to userboxes that have since been deleted. To understand the question correctly please refer to the former state of the page. See here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Only official user-boxes should appear on the Project's main-page, which can have a link to a secondary page of user-boxes of interest to WP users interested in the topic of atheism. The current official user-box (2) of the pink unicorn is traditionally satiric-atheistic, and thus has some conflict with this group's welcome to non-atheists. (I do not claim that this conflict is the greatest in human history!) I have written before, explaining my arguments, so here I have only restated my position.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer- can you link to a policy or guideline that says "official userboxes only"? tedder (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. WP operates by discussion. I have never stated that somebody has broken policy, only that this project should consider whether the user-boxes are consistent with its welcoming non-atheists. (I agree that some now removed userboxes are uncivil, and am glad that the worst offender was removed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Invisible Pink Trout. Are we really having an RfC over this? There's a good reason (maybe multiple good reasons) that I never added myself to the page listing project members, and never put any user boxes about any of my personal beliefs on my user page: Griswaldo's assumption that "regulars at the project" are probably "themselves atheists" reveals that the way the project presents itself gives rise to such assumptions, and that gets in the way of collaborative editing by making it look like a club. This is getting to be a waste of time. It's a bit over-dramatic to say that your efforts to remove the boxes were reverted. It's more like WP:BRD. At this point I would say just delete the unofficial ones and get on with more useful things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted replaced them, and I hope that makes the issue moot. And sorry if my comment above came on too strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries about the tone. The thing is that I did delete them and was hoping that we could just move on. But I was reverted first partially by Swarm and further by Dandv. I raised the issue above but very few people responded and those who did (like Swarm) appear to be diametrically opposed to my rationale for deleting them. That's why I started an RFC, to get broader input. I also hope the issue is moot and that you are not reverted as I was. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a link to off-project userboxes, and I am glad that the project page no longer has distracting or off-putting userboxes. (Phrasing it as a "deletion" of content should be avoided, because the page has a link.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, and thanks. Perhaps if there are no objections to what I did, after a day or so we might be able to end the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is interested in LGBT issues—which does not necessarily reflect the user's sexual orientation or gender identity.

This user is interested in LGBT issues—which does not necessarily reflect the user's sexual orientation.

• Comment I don't see what the issue is. If you don't like the userbox, don't add it to your page. The whole point of userboxes are that they are supposed to enable you to express some information about your particular perspective. That's why we have userboxes. They do express identity. I saw these two userboxes recently.

  The very fact they need to include the disclaimer to say that their interest in LGBT issues shouldn't give the reader reason to make any inferences about their sexual or gender identity shows that people are quite likely to do that kind of inference from participation in WikiProjects or from having interests-based userboxes.

  As for the invisible pink unicorn image: yes, some religious people may find that offensive. That's understandable. But the point of it is that it is an analogy to illustrate the epistemic status of theistic belief. It isn't saying "har har har, believing in God is as dumb as believing in the invisible pink unicorn (or Russell's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster)" (incidentally, the FSM is a really tired joke). It is saying "My epistemological preferences disincline me towards belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Maybe that has an implicit "(and perhaps yours should too)" but, meh, so does almost every expression of philosophical or religious preference.

  The problem for things like the IPU symbol and so on is that they are illustrations of an honestly and earnestly held philosophical position. But to illustrate such things in a simple and memorable way, you need to exaggerate slightly. Philosophical concepts are very hard to illustrate without a bit of artistic and imaginative license. If you don't believe me, go look at commons:Category:Philosophy! The illustrations of those beliefs and concepts can be slightly unpleasant and disagreeable as well as reductive. And they can often make people who disagree with the idea being promoted uncomfortable. But the answer seems to be to take less offence at such illustrations and assume good faith (or rather assume good non-faith)

  Perhaps it is because I am an atheist, and not a particularly mealy-mouthed and hyper-respectful one, and I like a good argument, but I can't see a problem here.

  The point of userboxes shouldn't be to not offend anybody (because that's impossible: I find the concept that people enjoy Justin Bieber's music quite offensive and if offense were the measure, I'd be MfDing any Bieber-related userboxes) but to help people identify their own affiliations and interests (and possible biases) while adhering to WP:DICK. I've yet to see any atheism-related userbox reach that point yet. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Tom I'm not sure any of your comment addresses the point at hand, but Tryptofish's recent edit may be part of the cause of confusion. First of all there are two separate issues here and this RFC was only directed at one of them. Whether or not userboxes that express personal beliefs should be on the Wikiproject page. The pink unicorn image on the official Wikiproject box is another issue discussed above. I don't think anyone is arguing against the existence or personal use of the various userboxes that express personal beliefs, philosophical positions, or group identities associated with atheism. I am certainly not making that argument. What is being argued is that such user boxes should not be on the Wikiproject Atheism main page. Why? Because while there is no issue with people professing group affiliation or belief preferences about themselves the Wikiproject should not seem like it is exclusively for people of a certain group or another. There are other places to store these userboxes. Now, what Tryptofish has done is to delete them and to provide a link to all religion related user boxes instead. Perhaps you didn't see the state of the Wikiproject page at the point I posted the RFC. I'll try to correct that for future commentators.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  I actually think Tom brings up a number of very good points, and I'd like to comment on them here, as a sort of extension of the discussion we are having, even though I will end up going a bit off-topic, to the extent that it really goes beyond this particular WikiProject. A while back, I looked at someone's user page and noticed a modification of one of the LGBT boxes shown above. The user had changed it to say "This user is NOT interested in LGBT issues", with the "NOT" capitalized like that. It seemed to me that that user box, was indeed deliberately offensive, and I don't like it one bit. I see at as the encapsulation of what can go bad with user boxes. Now in my mind (obviously this is subjective, per the discussions above), there is a clear difference between that and the IPU box that we have discussed, in that the IPU box simply says that the user supports a WikiProject, and is illustrated with something that is part of the subject matter associated with the project. Actually, I'd look very positively on someone using a box that says that this user believes in (insert name of religious faith) and is interested in contributing to WikiProject Atheism. At the end of the day, I really don't care what anyone believes, and I only care about how they edit. Anyway, I hope my edit helped, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it hasn't been reverted yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, I'd look very positively on someone using a box that says that this user believes in (insert name of religious faith) and is interested in contributing to WikiProject Atheism. At the end of the day, I really don't care what anyone believes, and I only care about how they edit. If you don't care about what people believe then why look positively on a userbox expressing belief? I don't follow. I did not say that Tom's points aren't good, I simply fail to see how they are germane. The IPU box discussion, again, is not part of this RfC. That discussion is about an official userbox for the Wikiproject. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK, you caught me in a contradiction, sort of! At least we agree that the WikiProject shouldn't make anyone who wants to contribute in good faith feel unwelcome. Let's leave it at that, and I'm personally real tired of discussing user boxes. And I didn't say that you said Tom's points weren't good, and I didn't mean it to sound that way. I was only saying that I think his points were good. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes I guess you didn't say that I thought that ... sorry :).Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  And let's refactor where I said "I really don't care what anyone believes" to say "I really don't find fault with anyone for what they believe, so long as they edit in an NPOV way." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, Griswaldo? As far as I can tell, the issue has been resolved in a very reasonable manner, so I'd advise you to close this RfC. There is absolutely no reason we need any more drama about this stupid, ridiculous issue just because your solution didn't stick. Swarm ^X 04:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Swarm please remain civil. When you and Dan reverted me, in keeping with WP:BRD I did not revert back but started a discussion. Very few participated in that discussion. Indeed it was pretty much only you. Because of that I tried to get more input from the community. I'm not sure where all the anger is coming from simply because I asked for wider input. As a point of fact, what Tryptofish has done is exactly what I did, with the addition of a link to all the religion userboxes. Of course I think that's an even better solution. As another point of fact Tryptofish did this after I started the RFC, and since my original deletion didn't stick I've been waiting to make sure this does before closing the RFC. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Swarm, I (hopefully!!) "resolved" it only after the RfC was opened, so that really isn't Griswaldo's fault. Admittedly, it isn't easy to follow the time line, so I trust this was just a misunderstanding. I'd look favorably on closing the RfC now, since we don't seem to have anyone objecting to the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an immensely minor issue. You were in favor of removing all the userboxes, I was in favor of removing all but a few. Was that our earth-shattering disagreement that needed dispute resolution? Tryptofish removed them all, but linked to the others, which, to me, seems like a perfectly reasonable middle ground that I'm fully in support of. Okay, that middle ground was reached after you opened an RfC, and I apologize if my last comment was counterproductive, but, since you agree that the current version is acceptable, can we close this RfC? We don't need anyone else to agree; we're all adults here (and if we're not, we should still act like it), and we're perfectly within our rights to agree on something without a community dramafest discussion. Swarm ^X 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no "dramafest." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates for Footer navigation template etc do not meet color guidelines

Hi there. Just a note to let you know that the templates Template:Atheism and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar for your wikiproject do not meet the guidelines for contrast per WP:COLOR as they fail the test at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html. Color blind and sight impaired people will not be able to read them readily. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this problem, I have gone ahead and modified the templates to meet the accessibility guidelines. Cheers, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dianaa. They look fine. As you can see from the talk later, some other issues came up and took a lot of attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Militant_atheism

Militant atheism needs some attention it seems to contain a lot of synth. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh there's more wrong with it than just that. It violates WP:NOTDICT and WP:NPOV. It is a WP:COATRACK built around an anti-atheist slur with a very broad meaning. It is currently followed by TWELVE religious WikiProjects but not WikiProject: Atheism. Obhave (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to this project, for what that's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Markuze

Is Dennis Markuze notable enough for us to start an article on him? If so, I can see potential BLP difficulties. (For people unfamiliar with his alleged activities, see this blog post by PZ Myers and this Toronto Sun story.) What do people think?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who he is, but I'm puzzled by why you would post the question here. Does he have something to do with this project? There's nothing in those two links you provided that would indicate passing WP:BIO, and plenty to indicate, as you say, BLP problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re posting the question: I couldn't find anywhere else to post it. I'm more than happy to move it to somewhere more appropriate if you/someone can suggest somewhere better. Re notability: it's the alleged activities that I think might be notable - the posting of huge numbers of threatening and incomprehensible messages on the forums, Twitter feeds, blogs etc. belonging to various prominent atheists.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so the subject is someone who directs these comments to prominent atheists. I didn't know that. You would need secondary sources showing the person is notable, per WP:BIO. I'm not seeing that here. An alternative approach might be an article about the event, rather than about the person, if there is sourcing for a campaign of harassment. Or, you might consider just adding a section about it to Discrimination against atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun story looks like a start towards establishing notability, but I think it would take a few more like it to clearly establish it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Wright (activist)

I can't save any text on that page, could anybody please check? Without talkpage the article will develop much slower. 87.178.101.241 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. (Someone had put code for non-displaying text, without closing it, at the top.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

There is an ongoing request for comment at Militant atheism that is relevant to this wikiproject. Please see Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Scope?

A relatively inexperienced editor has removed WP Atheism's banner from God of the gaps.[3] I'm sure it was done in good faith, and I have no idea whether this group wants to support this article. It's entirely up to you, of course, so I thought I'd alert you to the change and let you decide what to do. (Not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the template. No big deal, but presence of the template does no harm. (By the way, I watchlist this talk page, but I'm not officially a project member.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is an important subject in atheism, I mis it in a lot of summaries and some articles ... Is there a reason? Or was it forgotten because it was "too obvious"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.236.167 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Atheism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in atheism - as leaders, theorists, or women who are atheist themselves. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
• Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Bang#RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect capitalisation of "atheist" in biographies

I'm not a member of WikiProject Atheism but I'd like you all to know of the incorrect grammar presently found in hundreds of biographies of atheists, namely "None (Atheist)" [sic] appearing in the subsection mentioning their (ir)religion. "None", of course, is to be capitalised as it is at beginning of its own sentence and subsection; however, "atheist" isn't a proper noun and therefore only is to be capitalised at the beginning of its own sentence—brackets aren't sentences. The word "Atheist" in the middle of a sentence is incorrect in the English language, as Wiktionary shows. It'd be great if the next article of an atheist you see with this mistake you'd be able to do that minor edit. Thanks. JaumeBG (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Secular feminists

I've taken some online lists of secular feminists, merged them, and fixed various typos and name variants with redirects: see User:The Anome/List of secular feminists. Although most of the people on the list have articles, some are missing. Would anyone be interested in creating articles for those that fell through the gaps? -- The Anome (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

List membership being debated

Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#Bertrand_Russell it is being argued that Bertrand Russell isn't an atheist because he is an agnostic atheist. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed to rename article

Will some admin please see Talk:List_of_atheist,_agnostic,_and_nontheist_authors.#Admin_needed_to_return_to_original_name about an article rename? --Noleander (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also: can some admin rename: List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology -> the original title List of atheists in science and technology. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to centralize the discussion here: Talk:List_of_atheists_and_agnostics_in_science_and_technology#Good_move.3F_rename_from_.22list_of_atheists.22_to_.22list_of_atheists_and_agnostics.22. Please post any comments there, not here. --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Existence of God

There is currently a title discussion on this article: Existence of God(s). You are welcome to join the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Pass a Method talk 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NOT

Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

lede of FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation)

A little discussion of the article lede is occurring and could use input: Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation#Is_FFRF_an_atheist_group.3F tedder (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality about "Position on homosexuality" section. All editors are welcomed to share their opinion on the subject.

Note: per Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, the following WikiProjects are informed about this RFC because they have project banners on that talk page: WikiProject Scouting, WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject LGBT studies. --В и к и T 19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Qualifies for the project?

What are your thoughts on Secularism in Israel, freethinkers? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian POV on wikipedia

Any editors are welcome to contribute to the User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia piece. Pass a Method talk 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metatheories of religion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9#Category:Metatheory_of_religion

This category has been proposed for deletion, and the result will be that Atheism will be categorized under Religion, rather than Philosophy. The category was created to make a distinction between theories that govern the formation of religious beliefs which are limited by scholarly, academic, empirical, skeptical philosophical methodology and reason; and religious belief. Please look into this matter.Greg Bard (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please improve God is dead

I demoted God is dead from B- to C-class for the reasons outlined in Talk:God is dead#This article needs re-factoring or re-writing. I lack the expertise to do the article justice, so I'm calling editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to quickly improve the article at least to B-class.

In recognition of the Feb 28, 2012 death of William Hamilton (theologian), I'm further challenging both WikiProjects to work to get this to Good Article status if possible. Please follow up on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-religious violence" needs an article

There is an article about religious violence but there isn't an article about anti-religious violence. Why is this? I am sure athiests have used violence against Christanity. As an atheist myself, I can you I have become more aggressive against religion over time. Look at all of the problems religion has caused worldwide. It justifies racism, it justifies discrimination, it justifies sexism, it justifies intolerance, it justifies slavery, it justifies child abuse, it justifies rape, it justifies murder, it devalues reason, it devalues truth, it devalues humanity, it contradicts scientifically proven facts, it restricts free thought, it restricts freedom of choice, it restricts scientific progress, it restricts medical progress, it restricts social progress, it represses sexuality, it restricts sexual freedom, it encourages false information, it teaches behaviour through authority by means of reward and punishment, it steals time, it steals money, it steals energy, it steals resources, it steals knowledge, it steals lives, it defines human nature, it creates psychological problems, it creates resent, it creates shame, it creates guilt, it creates fear, it creates stress, it creates violence, it creates terrorism, it creates wars, it destroys families, it destroys communities and it destroys countries. When realizing how much problems religion causes, it is not uncommon for people to be against it.

One need only to look at the oppression against Christians by the atheist Chinese government; and, not to single out China, many nations with atheistic governments or atheist rulers have committed acts of oppression and violence against Christians. But in the United States and throughout the world, Christians are victims of atheist violence and it is an ongoing conflict. Athiests have also expressed violence against Christianity on websites. In the "first world" nations, where one would think bigotry and anti-religious violence would be declining, people see more and more anti-religious violence. Websites, billboards, full-page ads in newspapers, the formation of atheist groups to perform violence against religion, etc all point to the rise in violence by atheists against Christians. It seems reasonable to have an article about anti-religions violence. Volcanoguy 13:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nones

The term "nones" is gaining traction as a way to describe non-believers lately. I have not seen such on wikipedia though. Mostly it still uses "irreligius" Pass a Method talk 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Where to ask for others to keep an eye on Yahweh?

The article Yahweh, as I'm sure is true of many religious articles, has pretty frequent censorship attempts. My partner, and to a lesser degree, I, have been keeping an eye on this article for a few years and have to deal with this on a pretty regular basis. I'm wondering if there is a place, perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere, where we can request that others eager for this page to remain encyclopaedic and neutral in tone join in and look out for this article a little; perhaps join the debate on the talk page? Currently a total rewrite is being discussed that would, it seems, turn it into a theological document. Apologies if this is not a good place for this request. Nihola (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of atheism

The lead says "The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, while religiosity is declining." Then a bit further down an editor (who has been arguing that atheism is decreasing) added last night "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica in mid-2010 the world atheist population was 137,564,000 or 2.0% of the world population. The average annual % change from 2000 to 2010 globally was −0.17." This is an impossibly accurate figure, but the editor seems determined to minimise the number of atheists. This is contradicted by other sources and I've added some on the talk page. Anyone want to take a look at the article as a whole and try to make more sense of it? Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet anti-religious legislation

Soviet_anti-religious_legislation needs a large amount of work to get it up to standard. It's essentially a list and quotes with interlinks in them, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Conway Hall editathon

On the second of August we are running an editathon in partnership with Conway hall, they have archives of various freethought movements from the UK. Details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism/Conway hall editathon, even if you can't attend in person or via skype, this is an opportunity to get some queries pursued in their archives. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a request posted at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for the merger of Atheism in Indonesian law into Irreligion in Indonesia. Your input welcome at Talk:Irreligion in Indonesia#Merger proposal. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Criticism of Jainism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of Jainism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Jainism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Rahul (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Election map

Per talk:atheism#Elected atheists, I think it would be nice to have a map showing where atheists have been able to be openly elected in democratic elections. Maybe which states have had open elections since WWII, and in which of those a publicly-known non-theist was able to get elected to a national/state position, as well maybe as where ones have come out while in office. I started a map, File:Elected atheist leaders and representatives.svg, but it needs to be reviewed. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a comment about shades of gray – literally, not figuratively! You show the places with no votes since WWII in dark gray and the places that do not fall into other groups in light gray. When I first saw the map, I found light/dark unclear, and thought that you were saying that there had been no elections in most of the US since WWII! I'd suggest changing the dark gray to black, to avoid that confusion (in other words, you would have only one type of gray).

Another comment: I think there should be one or more inline citations in the image caption anywhere it is used, to show where the data came from. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, maybe black is better.

This came from the sources in our articles. However, it's a bit of a patchwork, as are many of our maps. It would be nice to have something more straightforward. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Irreligion in Europe

I think Irreligion in Europe should be split and gain its own article thoughts.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Irreligion in Japan

I think Irreligion in Japan should be split and gain its own article thoughts.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Justin Trottier article

I've been trying to clean it up. Before it read like a press release and had lots of fluff, references to his own articles, unreliable sources, etc. It still needs trimming and expanding some areas. More help is needed. If anyone can have a look at it please. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

An apagnostic doesn't care

I just wanted to throw this out there. It seems to me that an actual apagnostic would not even create an article on the subject. Why would they if they don't care? I label my wife as an apagnostic, whereas I'm firmly athiest. I have a strong opinion on the subject of theism one way, she could care less. It is not important to her. It's not part of her daily life nor thought. In fact, she is obviously disinterested anytime I try to discuss my thoughts on religion to her. I gave her the label of apagnostic several years ago while we were still dating. She didn't have a label for herself and still doesn't because she just doesn't care. I think that is the idea behind apagnosticism. A Wikipedia article on the subject, in my opinion, would be very short. It would say something like, "An apagnostic is someone who doesn't adhere to any religious beliefs and doesn't care." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.227.67 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

American Atheists bench in Starke, Florida

I've added photos of the American Atheists bench in Starke, Florida to American Atheists and Bradford County, Florida. It would be good if someone who knows more about the case puts up some discussion of it, especially on the Bradford County, Florida page. Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Dillahunty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Dillahunty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dillahunty (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam Harris (author) to be moved to Sam Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian fiction and allegory getting really coatracky

The Category:Christian fiction and allegory is getting really WP:COATRACKy. Could people please go through and weed out what doesn't belong? I already removed Category:The Matrix (franchise) from it, but it's late here and I need to go to sleep. Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cārvāka listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cārvāka to be moved to Charvaka. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Conflict of interest for atheism articles

I am observing,some declared theist are editing the articles on atheism,i believe its conflict interest.seeking the opinions of the project members.

Will Talk2 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want, you can also ask about this at WP:COIN, but I definitely do not see it as a COI problem. Anyone is welcome to edit what they want: religious persons editing atheism pages, or atheists editing religion pages. COI only comes into play when the editor stands to benefit, via money or prestige, etc., from the editing, and that's not an issue here. On the other hand, if the editing violates WP:NPOV, that's another issue entirely, and would need to be addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If declared atheists can't edit atheism related articles, then declared Christians will be found ineligible to edit anything related to Christianity, and declared residents of the US will be ineligible to edit content related to the US, and the list goes on and on and on. Unfortunately, in many of these cases, those with declared interests also have the best access to sources, so it would also be shooting ourselves in the foot to call COI in such cases. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what Will Talk2 was asking, it was about theists editing atheism pages. But I agree with what you said, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You right, I skwewed up. Again. I do that a lot, don't I? But if we want Christians to be able to edit content related to Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any NRM, the same rule applies. Basically, absurdly oversimplifying this matter, anyone can find a reference book on a subject or other source which is among the better ones out there for a topic. This includes me, who is a Christian and has been making a point of finding the better reference sources for religion of any type, to make it easier to compare content, including that on some groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, with whom I rather strongly disagree. For all I know, in a lot of cases, the authors of the reference books on topics may disagree with the subjects they write about too, and some of them still get published. Unless there are sources where the content for insiders differs from thnat for outsiders, anyone can pretty much read anything, and, so far as I know, reference sources don't come in varied editions. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with everything that you said (except for the parts about you screwing up)! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I Thanks all for joining in discussion.I want make my points here

1. due his editing to the article,it may look insignificant.it happened in my case,i one source is for multiple citation,but the editor did not understand this point 2.Hemlatha lavanam is from India of Andhra pradesh state,I am also belonged to the same state,as I know better than editor who edited my article. 3.one more conflict here name of the person, article name is Hemalatha Lavanam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemalatha_Lavanam),her given name is hemaltha,she added lavanam suffix to her name, Mr.Lavanam aslo in wekiepedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavanam),I suggested the editor to call her Mrs.Lavanam or Hemlatha,but he still wants call her lavanam.its due his lack of knowledge on the subject and lack of knowledge Telugu people names and sir name of the people of south indian region. 3.I agree,if some one knows editing and rules of editing can edit anything,but the point missing is they lack basic knowledge of the subject and passion to present correct history.rules can be altered and modified but history can not be.

Will Talk2 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is about the issues surrounding the discussion at Talk:Hemalatha Lavanam. The subject matter is way outside my expertise, so I'm afraid that I'm not going to be particularly helpful there. Please let me suggest Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics as a place where you may be able to get better advice than what you will get here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not only related to this topic Talk:Hemalatha Lavanam,but we need a honest discussion about this,this is a conflict interest,a person who is not rational, blinded by a faith,how honestly he can justify the editing to articles especially related to atheism.which questions or oppose his faith.

Will Talk2 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Having a particular faith still is not a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. Being blinded by it, if that is really what is happening, is instead an issue of WP:NPOV, and you may be able to get help with that at WP:NPOVN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on Bangladeshi bloggers

Due to the recent attacks on Bangladeshi secular bloggers, the article Irreligion in Bangladesh has attracted several new edits, including some vandalism. Consider improving it or at least adding to your watchlist. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Evangelical atheism

We should definitely have an article on Evangelical atheism, even if it's only to describe the use of the term as a boo-word by religious apologists. It might be an idea to merge it to antitheism as a specific section in that article, but a previous merge to antitheism, followed by extensive editing, seems to have ended up removing all mention of it from Wikipedia. I've restored the article from an old version, but it's still really poor. Can anyone please help improve it? -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Flying Spaghetti Monster to be moved to Pastafarianism. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Centre d'Action Laïque listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Centre d'Action Laïque to be moved to Centre d'action laïque. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth

For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. Keahapana (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Persecution by atheists

Are there equivalent religious categories? Does it matter that it was made by a Christian Wikipedia user? Asking because I don't really get involved behind the scenes so I have no idea. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh to be moved to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh to be moved to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Murder of atheist Nahed Hattar when charged with blasphemy

I'm a bit surprised that this is not yet even a candidate for inclusion in our "In the News" section on the Main Page. Perhaps I'd create a candidate entry myself, except that:

- I'm semi-retired

- I describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist (I know some say an agnostic is a soft or weak atheist, but I don't do so as I have no wish to confuse or mislead my listeners)

- I have somewhat confused views about blasphemy laws (as anybody who reads my discussion of the matter on my user page may notice)

- and I'm staying away from In The News candidates after having had a few unpleasant experiences there in the past which I have no wish to repeat.

But surely there are a few atheists here who might wish to get the ball rolling (unless perhaps they have all tried and failed to get similar candidates through in the past, perhaps for lack of the necessary consensus to post). Of course consensus may be hard to achieve.

And some may feel it may be a little bit too dangerous: My user page also discusses some possible dangers of editing Wikipedia, although I forget why I didn't explicitly mention the possible dangers of 'offending Islam' while editing Wikipedia. But I may have been worried about the (perhaps remote) possibility of leading some blasphemy-hunter to a 'Wiki-blasphemer'. At any rate those dangers were very much in my mind at the time, as I had recently seen a Muslim Wikipedian (perhaps entirely innocently) seeking the support of a non-Muslim Wikipedian to confirm that what another non-Muslim Wikipedian said about Islam on an Islam-related topic's Talk Page was 'disrespectful' (or some similar term). Perhaps fortunately his question got an evasive reply, though someone else might easily have unthinkingly agreed that it was disrespectful. Or maybe I'm just a bit too paranoid. Then again poor Mr Hattar seemingly wasn't paranoid enough, and the same can seemingly be said for quite a lot of dead critics of Islam.

Anyway, best of luck to anybody who tries. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

God listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for God to be moved to Deity (monotheism). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discrimination against atheists listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Discrimination against atheists to be moved to Persecution of Athiests. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Atheists to be verified

Hello colleagues, User:Jobas has removed the categorisation 'atheist' of a number of biographies that do not state explicitly that the person is/was an atheist. We need reliable sources to establish these people's atheism. I've already provided evidence for a couple of them, could you please help me? See Special:Contributions/Jobas. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. Hope my edit wasn't a controversial. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the supject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic.--Jobas (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No that's fine, you did the right thing. :) These claims need to be verified, even though that may take some effort. We know that some users love to assign a certain (ir)religious identity to people, Neil deGrasse Tyson being a notorious example of someone who has stressed he's an agnostic, not an atheist, but is constantly claimed as an atheist. So it's good to have a reliable source for such a claim. I've already had trouble with a few of the ones you question, e.g. I couldn't find a source for actor Daniel Craig. He only went as far as to say that the James Bond character he played seems like an atheist, and the film The Golden Compass in which he starred was accused of 'promoting atheism to kids'. Some unreliable website claims he's not religious but never called himself an atheist, another that he's an agnostic, without sources. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that it's fine to remove a category from a biographical page when there is no source provided for that category. If the category actually does apply, it can be added back with sourcing. However, if there are a large number of pages where the category really applies and just needs sourcing, it can be helpful instead to notify an interested WikiProject and allow interested editors to make the corrections. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad for your understanding :), I do agree as well, these claims need to be verified inside the artilce, Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)