Talk:Discrimination against atheists

Persecution of atheists was merged into this article: See old talk-page here

Iran section

We need a citation for the Iran section. I've added a citation tag for now, but I'm fully expecting an Iranian editor to come along and delete it. At this point, he would be justified in doing so. I've been hunting for this sort of thing on Google...but I haven't found it. If someone knows more than I do, please add a reference. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Booga Louie to deal with it appropriately. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination by atheists

Shouldnt we include an article on how atheists discriminate against non atheists

I don't know if any other religions have equivalent articles, listing their crimes against other religions. Further, how can you prove the discrimination committed by atheists is religious in nature? If an atheists massacres Christians who opposes him, is it "atheist discrimination"? Or is it simply a person killing people who oppose him? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be an article about that. You know, the USSR killings that far outnumbered the Holocaust...etc. Redsox7897 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Purge. —Jomasecu ^[T•C] 03:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians redirects to Christian debate on persecution and toleration, and there is obviously an article on Islamic terrorism. I don't see why a similar article regarding atheists would be objectionable if sufficient sources and examples were found. —Jomasecu ^[T•C] 03:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But is it religious persecution? That's the question. Is it an atheist killing christians or another man killing people who oppose him. Contrast the genocide in say ancient Rome to the Crusades. One is about power. One is about religion. I don't object to such an article, I don't doubt that there are evil atheists just like every other religion, but how do you show that they're discriminating based on religion and not something else? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That is why I mentioned sources and examples. I also doubt they could be found. —Jomasecu (t•c) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research

According to WP:Original research:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable source.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

If you can find a secondary source, for example, where someone states that these verses allow the killing or discrimination against atheists, then we may use these verses, that is why I didn't take them out. However, until you show a secondary source that attribute to these verses what you are, you are breaking WP:Original research. --Enzuru 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any claims that aren't easily verifiable. I don't need a secondary source. Murdering non-believers is discrimination against non-believers. This is fact. Do you dispute this? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You state the following, "Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia." The Bible has been published thousands of times by sources, that does not mean we can use any verse like we like. Once again, you must simply have a secondary source that states the interpretation we are presenting here is valid. That is simple, I am simply tagging, I am not deleting content. If you delete the tags one more time I will alert an administrator. I don't dispute murdering anyone is discrimination, however, you need a source to prove that is what these verses are implying, if this is easy to source do not delete the tags and simply source yourself. Second, you are breaking original research if you cannot prove that these verses are considered in correct context by their respective faiths. This is easy, all you have to do is source yourself. --Enzuru 02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are inventing policy. Yes we can use whatever verse from the bible we want. No interpretation is present. You are disputing the definition of discrimination. These verses specifically command followers to murder atheists. You say murder is discrimination. Definition is satisfied. 'Nuff said. Inform an admin if you wish. Explain to him why you are tagging trivially verifiable information. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, murdering is discrimination, I agree to that. You are stating that these verses specifically command followers to murder atheists, that is original research because they are clearly not interpreted like that by a Christian or Jew or Muslim all the time. And fine, I shall inform an administrator. --Enzuru 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

lol. Interpret this for me, theist: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have once again proven your WP:original research, as well as having an IP conveniently revert for you (which has also been reported to an administrator). As for your verse, sorry, that is referring to defensive warfare in the Qur'an. Elsewhere, the Qur'an specifically says that unbelievers who do not fight against you, you may be friendly with them. --Enzuru 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked a friend without a wiki account what he thought, and he agreed with me. Prove what you've said about these quotes and I'll remove them myself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, neither of our opinions matter, because that is original research. You must prove these verses mean what you are saying they mean to scripture, not me to disprove what you feel is apparent. I disproved many of these verses before, and I will paste it here, not for this debate, but simply for you to read. Once again, you will need sources showing that these verses are interpreted as you mean. --Enzuru 03:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123)

2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)

3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)

4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)

5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)

6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)

7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14)

8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)

9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28)

10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)</nowiki>

These excerpts are taken from the Koran itself; I don't see how this leaves much 'wiggle room' for tolerance in modern Islam unless followers have decided to ignore sections of their holy text, and Jihad would seem inevitable to me.Mjackso6 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're taking them out of context, silly. I can take parts of the Bible or Das Kapital out of context too. Here we go, let me correct your lack of research:

• You quote verse 9:123. In the start of that chapter, verse 9:6 states, "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."
• You quote verse 8:12. After that is verse 8:37, which states, "Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning)."
• You quote verse 3:85, verse 3:113 after that states, "They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him)." The phrase "People of the Scripture" refers to Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.
• You quote verse 9:5, but you don't fully quote it, you cut off part of the quote. The entire part states as follows, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful." And even establishment of worship isn't needed, since many groups rejected Islam and just accepted a treaty with Muslims.
• You quote verse 2:191. Right after that verse is 2:192, which states, "But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.". Earlier in that chapter is verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
• You quote verse 9:193, which doesn't even exist, since the 9th chapter of the Qur'an only has 129 verses!
• You quote verse 9:14, but right before that verse, verse 9:13 states, "And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." So, once again, we have defensive fighting.
• You quote verses 9:28 and 9:29. I once again quote verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
• And most importantly, whether someone is a theist or atheist, I quote the following verses, 60:08 to 60:09, "Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers. Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers."

You should do your own research instead of finding quotes on the Internet and not actually reading them in context. Islam brought to religion the idea we must logically accept things through our own research, both through intellect and heart. I urge you to do the same, no matter what religion you are, or even if you have no religion. Truth and logic must go hand in hand, don't discriminate or hate another faith or judge them until you do actual research, instead of copying and pasting verses out of context with causes hatred towards people, giving them wrong impressions. Don't just trust what someone else tells you, you need to verify it yourself. Your sister in humanity, --Enzuru 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't put every quote into context. Several of them you countered with a completely different quote which only shows that the Koran, just like the Bible, contradicts itself. This is not a surprising result. If anything, this supports my position that quotes from the Koran may be listed here if it is impossible to put them in context. I had a similar discussion with a Christian earlier. Indeed, I removed the quote he put into context. But don't even try to tell me that the Koran is a bastion of tolerance in every single verse. You are outright lying to yourself if you think this, which would again be unsurprising. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So far you have called me a theist (which has nothing to do with WP:Original research, told me I am lying to myself, and continued to prove you are breaking WP:Original research. If you want to discuss personal beliefs (no, I don't believe the Qur'an contradicts itself nor do I believe the Qur'an incites the amount of intolerance that is seen today), you are more than free to e-mail me. However, you have made my case with the administrators easy. This will be settled soon enough. --Enzuru 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You admit to believing in the Qur'an. You are therefore a theist, my apologies for accurately describing you, atheist. Good luck with the admins. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I stated why the theist comment was offensive, you broke WP:Good faith by bringing my religion into an issue which has to do with an article, not any of our personal beliefs. --Enzuru 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I invited a theist, someone who knows more about religion than me, to comment on religious text. I'm researching the quotes now. Looks like 9:123 reads as it should. A quote that contradicts it a chapter away is not enough to convince me it was taken out of context. This is what makes me think so: [1] - The paragraph starting with "The literary context of 9:123" AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a start, but I notice your source uses only one Musim interpretation (tafsir), and that's by Maududi who not only disparaged unbelievers in his interpretations, but prophets and their followers themselves. He isn't accepted as mainstream to say the least. A Christian or atheist's interpretation of a Muslim holy book isn't going to be valid for Muslims themselves, and the context the article tries to present seems rather skewed. If we have, say, a holy book that states everyone should be put on fire, and everyone in that religion interprets it like Muslim Sufis do, the fire of love, does that make other interpretations valid? Not really. We should find a source the extensively quotes Muslim commentators. The issue of Qur'anic injunctions fighting unbelievers has been extensively reviewed by Muslim commentators, you should find no lack of sources in them, or in those who quote them (which is preferable in MOS:Islam). --Enzuru 04:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't trust atheists or christians to comment on the Koran, so let's ask a muslim, surely he'll be objective! :p This is an unavoidable problem with not only interpretting the Koran in english, but quoting it. Maybe I'll expand the section...I am having no trouble finding both translations and interpretations of specific verses. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. It is Muslims who are adhering to Islam, not Christians or atheists, so if those Muslims interpret it to be violent (and don't check western Muslims, check earlier commentators before the rise of secularism and humanism), then it is violent. If the Muslims aren't interpreting it to be violent, or it is a fringe opinion, then one cannot say the Qura'n means that to Muslims. You're correct, don't check modern apologist Muslims who want to cover things up, check traditionalist Muslim commentators, as well as mainstream scholarship, fringe views on both sides of the pond are not good for this article. --Enzuru 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll expand the section later tonight, including multiple translations and perhaps a few interpretations. I won't consider arguments based on historical context though. That is such a lame excuse for a book that is supposed to be the word of god. I'm going out for a few hours. I'll put a citation tag on the section until I'm done. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of tafsir is based however on historical context, so you will find yourself seeing that often in your research with mainstream scholarship. And the discussion isn't just limited to the Qur'an, we need to cite Christian and Jewish sources that the verses we are using from their scriptures validates discrimination against atheists. I still stand by my original research complaint. --Enzuru 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And I stand by policy -- we do not need a secondary source if the information we draw from the text is trivially verifiable. The Bible condemns non-believers to hell over and over again, according to the Christian with the same complaint as you. Unless you dispute this fact, you must agree that we do not need citation to say that the Bible discriminates against atheists. The quesiton then becomes which quotes we can use to demonstrate this. If you feel that these quotes have been taken out of context, please show me, and I will delete them without complaint. But I'm not going to search the internet for an article specific to each quote, labeling it as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it's easy. If you don't want to source everything (ie, source that this verse is used by mainstream scholarship to condemn atheists) then there is no issue with having my tags there. My issue wasn't the hell thing, it was verses that seemed to be promoting violence against atheists, which to me is original research since mainstream Muslim and Jewish scholarship themselves don't interpret those verses to mean that, which is original research. If you keep the verses of violence out, I'd just keep the citation-needed tags, since using the verses that condemn atheists to hell interpretations can easily be found by mainstream scholarship in all three religions. So what I'm saying is, there are two tags there, citation-needed and original research. Citation needed is because you aren't citing your sources (which you say are easy to cite, trivial, that doesn't mean according to policy you don't have to cite them) that these verses are interpreted by mainstream scholarship to mean what they mean. My second tag is for original research, when from my knowledge, you are using verses that even mainstream scholarship doesn't use to promote violent acts against atheists. Also, let me clear up something that you seem to have misunderstood. I'm not saying every verse is taken out of context. I agree (and have stated several times) that killing and saying atheists are going to hell is discrimination. I'm just saying you need to find sources that say that this and that verse means atheists are going to hell or should be killed in light of scripture and the religion, which obviously is discrimination. If you can't, you either are not citing your sources, or if no mainstream sources by the faith can be cited, are breaking original research. That's all I'm saying. --Enzuru 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another idea

Instead of just citing from scriptures, we should delete those sections and use secondary sources themselves. I actually thought a section like this already existed but I realized just now it didn't (I thought this was a separate section dealing with the scripture of those faiths). Why don't we rebuild the section citing Jewish rabbnical opinions on how atheists should be treated (historically as well as contemporarily), Christian opinions (particulary Catholic and Protestant), and Muslim opinions, citing both mainstream historical scholarship as well as recent persecution of atheists by Muslim communities? This way, we can deal both with what the religions preach, and what is practiced by the followers. Scripture as we both agreed is vague and sometimes not easy to decipher. --Enzuru 07:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Like, let me give you an example. In Usuli Twelver Islamic fiqh, atheists are considered to be ritually impure, and if you touch a wet one you'll need to wash yourself. This isn't found in scripture, but rather this is practiced according to Usuli Twelver fiqh (most of it at least). We can build a strong article off of these sources. But so we don't break WP:Original research, we can't just cite an Ayatollah saying it, we need to find a source that cites the Ayatollah (which isn't hard!). --Enzuru 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to keep at least a few quotes from scripture in here. It's unfair to say that discrimination against atheists is entirely culture based when nearly every (if not every) culture uses scripture to justify the discrimination. It's the natural thing to do to list here that scripture. I agree with you though that the article has been lacking sections going into detail on the treatment of atheists by various religions. I originally added the sections on scripture so that I could mention apostasy in Islam without being unbalanced. The punishment for apostasy is, afterall, heavily scripture based. It would be unfair for me to talk about Islamic scripture without mentioning the bible.

In response to your previous statement (I want to keep this fairly linear so I'll respond here) my argument has and remains that secondary sources for these quotes are not necessary in the cases where the quotes are not taken out of literary context because their meaning is clear and they trivially satisfy the definition of discrimination. This is not original research. It is comprehension of the english language. If I was mistaken in some of my additions, I'll remove them. I am not a biblical scholar, nor a muslim, so I haven't read either book from front to back. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's the thing, it isn't straightforward. There are verses that very obviously in the Qur'an mean one thing, but they have rarely been interpreted the way that would be obvious, even by historical commentators, do you see what I'm saying? That's why we can still keep certain quotes, but we should perhaps put the quotes in the body of the article and use more reliable sources. It's not hard to find discrimination against atheists in the Qur'an, the Torah, the Gospels, the Baghavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the proper way that doesn't entail WP:original research. The way we are doing it currently really isn't representing how traditionally Muslims have understood the Qur'an. It's like you've put up this flying spaghetti monster and want me to disprove it, rather, it's fair for me to ask you to prove to me that these verses have been traditionally understood the way you are saying, I can't find material refuting an interpretation that hasn't traditionally existed. Like, in Sufi poetry the prohibited drink wine is often used, but it is rarely ever meant literally, it's simply poetry. That exact same thing doesn't apply for the Qur'an per se, but what does apply is applying traditional meanings to the verses rather than saying "this verse obviously means this" without any traditional or mainstream interpretation to back it up which is original research no matter how we try to trist it. So, I'll repeat what I said before, let's create an actual textual body for discrimination in religion, and then use verses that have been traditionally used against atheists within that body (and we'll quote reliable commentators for their respective faiths about how these verses implicate the meanings they do). And lastly, actually, the defense against execution for apostasy is based in the Qur'an, not the ruling itself. Those who are against it most often quote the Qur'an saying there is no compulsion in religion while fanatics like Maududi claim that mainstream belief is incorrect. The ruling for apostasy itself is derived from secondary literature, hadith, meaning traditions. On a side note, the first verse, 8:12, every single source I am looking at it says the verse is about polytheists in battle fighting against Muslims (which as we note is the context of this battle), not polytheists in general, and not one interprets it as meaning atheists. We need to make sure we keep the discriminiation on atheists not on polytheists or People of the Book and so forth. --Enzuru 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, if we're going to cite every little thing, how do you know that 8:12 was used by a "minority" of muslims? What if we consider muslims in the past? I really doubt an admitted atheist would live long during Islam's early years. How acceptable do you think atheism is in the Islamic world right now? As I understand it, it's a capital offense in Iran right now. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need to cite that, you're correct, you're getting the hang of this! I'll add the citation-needed myself. And Iran is hardly an ideal choice to make points considering that Khomeini was considered so heretical in his inductions that the ulema refused to drink the same water as his son (using the same ruling for the discrimination against moisture on atheists). And you're absolutely correct, as I've stated several times, I don't want to cite modernist hippie Muslims, I want traditional or mainstream sources. And historically, verse 8:12 has been understood in the context of the Battle of Badr, but we'll flesh that out as we (hopefully?) start writing this article? --Enzuru 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's tradition doesn't make it right. You're talking to an atheist here. The last argument you want to make to me is "most people believe this, therefore that's how we should approach it." I live in the most pious Christian nation in the western world and have chosen to reject my faith. The opinion of the masses doesn't have a lot of weight with me. If I understand you correctly, you would be willing to say that we could ignore the literal meaning of a passage just because most people do. That would not be original research, but it wouldn't be any better. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The traditional and mainstream explanation is how Muslims understand their faith, why would a new interpretation mean anything the them or mean anything to the world? Yes, according to WP:UNDUE we have to use mainstream sources and scholarly understandings. There's no point in interpreting, "This means this," when no one, or an insignificant minority believes it. The literal meaning of the passage has no meaning if Muslims themselves don't believe in it. If an atheist says this verse is violent but most Muslims don't believe so, then what does it mean? Who is going to act upon the violence, the atheist who doesn't believe in the Qur'an or the Muslim who doesn't believe in the atheist's interpretation? Do you see what I'm getting at, an interpretation has no meaning Islamically or to atheists if no one or few people are going to follow it. This article is about discrimination against atheists, and there isn't any discrimination if no one understands it to mean that except a few who don't even follow the book itself. Just to address another point, from my knowledge, unbelievers (atheists were particularly rare even before Islam in the Arabian peninsula) lived for quite a while in the Arabian peninsula after the rise of Islam, in fact an early account in Nahjul Balagha has Ali warning one of his governors against discrimination of unbelievers. Ali, the first Shi'a Imam, and fourth Sunni Rashidun caliph states,

After invoking Allah and praising the Holy Prophet (s) be it known to you that villagers and farmers of the provinces under you, complain of your harshness, arrogance and cruelty. They complain that you consider them mean, humble and insignificant and treat them scornfully. I deliberated over their complaint and found that if, on account of their paganism they do not deserve any favourable treatment of extra privileges, they do not deserve to be treated cruelly and harshly either. They are governed by us, they have made certain agreements with us and we are obliged to respect and honour the terms of those agreements. Therefore, be kind to them in future, tolerate them and give them due respect, but at the same time keep your prestige and guard well the position and honour of the authority which you hold. Always govern with a soft but strong hand. Treat them as they individually deserve, kindly or harshly and with respect or with contempt.

He also states in this book, "Whoever is not your brother in faith is your brother in humanity." --Enzuru 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your most recent edit, I think since this article is "discrimination against atheists" we should start with how the passage is discriminatory and then explain how it is not. I'm going to re-order that paragraph if you have no complaints. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Enzuru 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheists are not pagans. If only we got the respect they got. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

lol, agreed (especially in the West, sheesh, being pagan is cool but being an atheist is nerdy!), but there seems very little to imply atheists would have been given different treatment by Ali (especially since polytheism is an unforgivable sin in the Qur'an and atheism is not). But as I said before, let's also not get verses on polytheists and atheists mixed up either, most are talking about polytheists and most within the context of war. --Enzuru 07:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheists pretty much didn't exist in the middle ages though. I read the History of atheism and atheism only really got started (in the West at least) during the 1800's if I recall. You could argue that historically the Koran and the Bible are never talking about atheists. Nonetheless we know that both books are used against them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, that's where modern interpretations will come in to bolster us. Though, I'd like to dispute that claim about atheism developing late, I remember the Baghavad Gita speaking of atheism, and I think the Qur'an does to. But I think the book is right elsewise, our standardized form of atheism is rather new. --Enzuru 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the interpretations of modern religious groups are more relevant to the article than pure scripture. If the literal text is discriminatory, but no one who gives the words signifigant weight in their lives takes them in that way, it doesn't cause actual discrimination. Either way, it needs refs. —Jomasecu (T•C) 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what I've been saying, but we should also track any prominent historical interpretations. And either way, we need references in order not to break WP:original research. --Enzuru 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd inclusions

OK, there are at least a couple of countries -- Denmark and Britain -- whose monarchs are restricted by law to be a member of the state religion. In what way does this constitute discrimination against atheists? It's discrimination against every other religious or irreligious perspective that exists; I'd imagine atheism is a downright trivial issue as far as these laws are concerned. It seems odd to include these. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

An atheist can never be a monarch, that is rather prominent. --Enzuru 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Neither can a Zorastrian, a Jew, a Flying Spaghettist, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Methodist...big deal. --~~

Just because others are discriminated against as well does not mean it is not discrimination against atheists. --Enzuru 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a noteable position and clearly discriminates. It's not against atheism specifically, and atheists may have been a trivial concern at the time these laws were made, but to an atheist it becomes less trivial. —Jomasecu (T•C) 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you consider this discrimination trivial doesn't mean we need to exclude these examples. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources explicitly citing these items as examples of "discrimination against atheists." Otherwise we are committing original research in violation of policy, no matter how much we may like our conclusions. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• An interesting way to look at the UK monarchy is to consider that it would be pretty weird for an atheist to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply no. If you want a source go to dictionary.com and look up "discrimination." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Please do not take dictionary definitions and combine them with your own perception of events to synthesize new interpretative conclusions. A secondary source must attribute "discrimination against atheists" to the material under question, you cannot view events and decide that they are discrimination yourself, based on a dictionary's definition of discrimination. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Anyone who speaks english can interpret these facts as discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have just said, "interpret". From the same WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't like that word, anyone who speaks english can infer that these facts are discrimination. Better? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still interpretation. Your original wording was more honest and straightforward about your behavior, even if it did not ultimately serve your interests. All material must derive from explicit attestation in reliable sources. There is no legitimate way around this. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make my counter-argument go away. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You provided no valid counter-argument. You have simply insisted that your original interpretations are "obvious." WP:PRIMARY exists, in part, to prevent people with your line of thinking from using Wikipedia articles for original research. Your claims are not "descriptive," they have involved synthesis, personal confirmation of experience, and other forms of illegitimate support. Please use reliable secondary sources that explicitly support the claims and associations made in the article from now on, thanks. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What experience did I use to realize that banning atheists from office is discrimination? What other form of "illegitimate support" did I use besides a dictionary? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Below you tried to prove that atheists consider the items discriminatory by citing your own testimony: "Proof: I take issue with these." Your personal opinion or experience of the topic cannot have any bearing on Wikipedia, as you (being a Wikipedia editor) are not a reliable source. The dictionary use remains illegitimate because rather than simply looking a word, you analyzed a situation and decided that it meets the definition of "discrimination." Your original analysis will not be included in Wikipedia articles. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is banning atheists from office discrimination? I am asking you now, turkey. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Our personal interpretations do not matter. Only reliable directly supporting secondary sources can be used to include the interpretation in the article. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The reference to the UK monarch should be removed. Verbal chat 11:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The original argument is that this was not relevant as it is not specific discrimination. Now we're arguing that this is not discriminatory or that it needs reference to the interpretation of discrimination? Please. An atheist cannot be the U.K.'s head of state (even if it is a figurehead position). Any "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" can easily understand that to be discriminatory. —Jomasecu (t•c) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be not distracted

The discussion about the appropriateness of quotes in the article seems to have been distracted as users began to discuss whether or not they think that the quotes do indeed show discrimination, but our personal conclusions have no bearing on whether or not the material is right for the article.

AzureFury's attempt to associate passages from primary sources to "discrimination against atheists," essentially suggesting that they are examples of Quranic "discrimination against atheists" is original research (WP:PRIMARY). Interpreting primary sources is what experts are supposed to do, not Wikipedians. If reliable sources associates these passages explicitly to "discrimination against atheists," we can use those sources, and if there is still value in a the passages we may keep them as well. Until then, they must be excised from this article.

For starters, love them or hate them, answering-islam.org, Jihad Watch, and other polemic websites do not even approach being reliable sources. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this. Read or reread my comments regarding original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read them for the first time. We need sources describing what you want to include as being discrimination -- not just your analysis. For example, you don't get to conclude the Danish or British monarchial rules are discrimination; you get to find a reliable source that describes it as such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this. Read or reread my comments regarding original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see "I don't need a secondary source. Murdering non-believers is discrimination against non-believers. This is fact". That doesn't quite cut it, considering Wikipedia content rules ask the opposite (that you use secondary sources, &c.) A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the references for Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks. They do not use the word "controversial" but are included in the section. We do not need someone to make this exact remark. In addition, they are labeled under a section titled "issues" and not "discrimination". The implication is that atheists take issues with these, and they do. Proof: I take issue with these. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If that article is also breaking the rules, go fix it. Your personal experience with the topic has absolutely no bearing on our construction of the article. You are not a reliable source. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I don't speak english? Are you saying these facts do not satisfy the definition of discrimination? Why don't you lead by example and fix that article first, demonstrate to me a precedent that we are not allowed to use words whose definitions are satisfied by the material in question, and I will change the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not required to demonstrate a precedent or edit some other article for you. The policies and guidelines have been laid out before you time and again. You, and all other editors, must not commit original research or original synthesis. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know that many editors, including admins, have looked over that page and found it satisfactory. That page makes a stronger implication than this one. We're not changing the rules established on that page because you don't like what you see on this page. If you prefer, I will look through the page's history and give you the names of the admins who deemed it satisfactory. If you can convince them, that will convince me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The other page remains irrelevant. The rules were not established on that page; the rules are listed in the content guidelines and policies. See WP:CONSENSUS#Exceptions: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale" as represented by our guidelines and policies. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're saying it was an exception. There was no debate for those edits. It was implicitly understood that requiring a specific string to be written on an obscure topic was unreasonable. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The link WP:CONSENSUS#Exceptions discusses situations where consensus-based editing does not prevail. The item relevant to our situation is that we cannot all agree to ignore a rule that has wider consensus in the community (and hence is a guideline or policy). Hence, we cannot simply agree that your original interpretation of primary sources is correct and so ignore the requirement that secondary sources provide interpretation to our articles, as this latter requirement has a wider consensus than whatever agreement we may decide on this page. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You say we're ignoring policy. We're not. Let me give you an example. Would it be fair to include the number 38160784967018760687061 in Integer even if we had no secondary source explicitly calling 38160784967018760687061 an Integer? We know the definition. There are an infinite number of possibilities to include on that page as examples. The same is true here. We know the definition of discrimination. We need only satisfy that definition to add it to the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We must rely on experts to decide what is discrimination. As John Vanderberg has emphasized below, the topic is rather complex and as Wikipedians we are not permitted to interpret primary sources ourselves, particularly for contentious claims as these. Please do not argue in favor of including original research in the article, thank you. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. He's talking about the section on scripture. These are examples. They're different. I asked you if you disagreed that these examples are discriminatory. You have not disagreed. Who exactly is contesting them such that these examples earn the description of "contentious"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

On a topic like this, every aspect of the article needs to be based on secondary sources. The entire section Discrimination_against_atheists#Scripture is making suggestions that these passages have caused discrimination, but this is not very well founded by citations to scholarly views. (there are some in the Koran section) As has been said elsewhere on this talk page, we need to add sources that discuss these passages and how they relate to discrimination, oppression and apostasy. Simply tossing a verse at a reader is wrong, as there are mountains of scholarly views about every single verse in the Bible and the Koran, so there is no need to just provide verses and require that the reader figure out how relevant it is. These passages do not discriminate; people do. Scholarly opinion is needed to link the two and demonstrate how much effect these passages have had on people who have discriminated. Anyone with half a brain knows that these passages are pretty poignant examples of what has motivated people, but these sections have been tagged as {{OR}} because we need to alert readers (and editors) that we havent yet added information to put these passages in context using secondary sources. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that the concept of discrimination was not a concern when these passages were written-- i.e. they were not written for the purpose of discrimination; the underlying motive was very different - nation building and ethnic cleansing are more apt descriptions for the motivations behind these passages. Above you say that "murdering people is discrimination". That statement is inaccurate if "discrimination" is not the intended motive. We dont call war an act of discrimination, because even though they overlap, they are fundamentally very different beasts. Jews who didn't believe in the one God were put to death or expelled from the country. OTOH, the U.S. state constitutions were written in a time when discrimination was a concept people understood, those affected where citizens of the country and numerous enough that the lawmakers realised the result of the laws they were writing, but the states still thought it was a good thing to exclude them from certain offices :- that is discrimination as we know it. One of the reasons why dont permit original research, or we aggressively tag it, is that it is easy to come to misleading conclusions by making a few unqualified statements like "murdering people is discrimination" in a sequence ends up with some very bizarre results. If a scholar does that, their papers get rejected and we never get an opportunity to cite them. The peer-review process ensures that what we cite is well reasoned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kind administrator sir, :( that's all I ever wanted. --Enzuru 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

The original research appears to jump in after "there exist laws that could be considered discriminatory towards atheists." A good portion of the items do not involve reliable sources explicitly associating "discrimination against atheists." The source called "Lag" I cannot check, but I also suspect it is a primary source or otherwise does not actually make the interpretative jump.

I'm going to go after this, but at quick glance it seems that the case about the Swedish Humanist Association could possibly be forged into an appropriate passage. Are there any general comments or defenses? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

two other U.S. state cases

In the article I used as a reference for the BSA case,[2] two other cases are mentioned:

“ Gray, Tennesse: Carletta Sims joined a financial firm in June 2001. Shortly afterward, two Baptist coworkers took offense upon learning that Sims was an atheist. Management granted the coworkers' request to be assigned workspaces further from Sims. When Sims complained about a picture of Jesus left on her computer, management discharged her. Sims filed suit, seeking $250,000; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that "religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred." In January 2004, the major bank that had since acquired the firm settled with Sims for an undisclosed amount. ”

“ Caro, Michigan: In December 2001, Anonka--an open atheist who maintains a museum of Christian religious atrocities--appeared before the Tuscola County Board of Commissioners to challenge a nativity scene placed on public land. Commissioners responded angrily, saying she had no right to be present and proceeding to ridicule her. Anonka and her family suffered repeated harassment including annoyance calls, threatening calls and letters, and vandalism. In February 2004, the county settled in U.S. District Court, agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and to issue a "public expression of regret." ”

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work needed

This article, besides the original research problems, fundamentally comes across as more of a brochure for atheism than a balanced and encyclopedic article. I'm not saying that the topic isn't encyclopedic, or that the current one is blatantly pushing a view (or else I would have tagged the whole thing NPOV), but that it just reads more like a rant with a scattershot of examples than an objective presentation point by point with an actual flow and logic to it. And I say that as an atheist myself, by the way. We are not here to convince (and the lead is especially direct in stating claims without any sources and which a number of people would disagree), we are here to describe. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly how I feel. --Enzuru 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Under siege

Please demonstrate your good faith here by discussing major changes, especially deletions before you implement them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now why didn't you extend the same favor to us when you included tons of quotes and primary sources in the article? Why didn't you demonstrate "good faith," and obtain consensus before implementing? Much of the problem (and the need for deletions) has been created by your controversial additions, so please show "good faith" and remove them. Otherwise your request here that we extend such great courtesy to you carries little weight. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These edits were here before I found the article. I didn't add them. I'm defending them. In addition, they are in no way controversial as YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DISPUTED THEM. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehm? I found this article because you asked for help creating and expanding the section on the Qur'an, the same section I disputed (and on the same basis, the other scripture-based sections). And tone down the caps, we've disputed the breaking of WP:original research several times. --Enzuru 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. You convinced me with the comment about literal discrimination is meaningless unless people interpret it that way that the scripture should focus on mainstream interpretations. I'm talking about the examples. Turkey is saying they need to be cited when these trivially satisfy the definition of discrimination. He has not pointed to any example and said, "that is not discrimination." Thus they are undisputed, not sure why he's pressing for citation for something he agrees satisfies the definition. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's actually not too weird. Everything on Wikipedia should be cited, someone pushing you for a citation on something even they believe in (even I do this on articles!) is not something to be worried about. I've more than once deleted content on Wikipedia that I believed in, or even wrote, because of the lack of citations. --Enzuru 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to dispute or agree with any of the interpretations given, but rather I am here to insist that we follow policy and use reliable secondary sources to back interpretations and determine content instead of our own judgment. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, if these examples satisfy the definition of discrimination, they don't need to be cited. I've quoted policy, and I've cited precedent. Requiring every word on Wiki to be written by someone else would intefere with the writing of the encyclopedia. We're authors, not plagiarizers. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is he's also cited policy quite a bit. What I see as part of the issue is instead of citing materials on discrimination, we are citing everything and anything to prove points. There are entire books written on discrimination, we should be citing from this material, where the word discrimination is actually used. It may seem silly, but that is how policy and Wikipedia works. There are few to none articles on Wikipedia that cite sources where the article name itself cannot even be found, like we are doing here! --Enzuru 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need you to tell me how policy works. I've been here for quite awhile and I've even been called a WP:Wikilawyer. You could argue that every word written on Wikipedia is written to prove some point. Now that I think about it, you could argue that every coherent sentence has a point. A point-driven article is not violating policy nor unprecedented. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, being called a Wikilawyer in no way proves that you understand or are following policy. That normally means that someone is arguing about stuff constantly to try to get your way over what the policies actually mean. That's not a good thing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It means I know policy well enough that someone considers my knowledge of it unfair. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wording is quite that important. If a reliable source says that x group of Muslims believe in killing unbelievers because of some piece of scripture, it doesn't need to use the actual word discrimination. A reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can work out that that is discriminatory. We need the source that someone is taking it that way, though, or else should we include some Greek mythology in here that says to kill those who don't believe in Zeus? (Can't say for certain that exists, just making a point.) —Jomasecu ^[T•C] 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also conceeded to focusing more on interpretations of scripture as every verse in scripture is typically debated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Under siege" -- you've got to be kidding me, AzureFury. People are just trying to get this article to meet Wikipedia standards. You do not WP:OWN this article, despite your clear indications that you think you do. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, they would respond to my definition based argument rather than just repeating the secondary source argument. So far, the examples are completely uncontested. Not one editor has had the courage to say that they are not discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't even know how your response has anything to do with my comment. The material I removed, that you restored, and which you are now complaining about deletions and an article under siege, have nothing to do with whether it is discrimination or not and secondary sources, etc. Whatever you are on about, your attitude is completely uncivil, and your edits, from what I ahve seen anyway, violate a whole slew of Wikipedia policies, like WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL (for talk page comments). Please take it down a notch. As I said, I don't see that your complaints so far have any merit, and they certainly don't justify the complaint you made at the top of this section. It's not under siege just because people are making edits you do not agree with, you don't get to say edits can't be made without your approval first, and so forth and so on. DreamGuy (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I went back to the above and reread the back and forth to see what you are even talking about regarding secondary sources. The problem with that is they have accurately pointed out that your edits do not comply with policy when it comes to secondary sources, and you just ignore it and try to claim what you know about discrimination. Anything YOU know or conclude about discrimination, or anyone here, is by definition original research, which is prohibited. We NEED secondary sources that are reliable. That is NOT optional. If you dispute that, go try to get the policy changed (and good luck with that, it'll never happen), because ignoring it isn't an option. DreamGuy (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:POT before you talk to me about civility. You've ignored the fact that I have quoted policy as well, as have other editors. If you're not going to respond to my policy based argument, then I'm not going to respond to you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, he spoke to you in a much nicer way than you spoke to me, I wouldn't say he broke WP:UNCIVIL. --Enzuru 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not complicate things by debating over whose container of incivility is more full. I've noticed myself being more aggressive than perhaps was necessary in some of these debates, but I have not broken any rules, and typically the dispute was resolved amiably to the satisfaction of all editors involved. I can think of at least two situations where this was the case. Three if you count the dispute over the Koran verses (as that is in the process of being resolved to everyone's satisfaction hopefully). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy we did solve the issue, and I thank you for that. But I did feel you handled things a bit aggressively/uncivilly, but that's just my two cents. I tell you this as someone who has had the same aggressive/uncivil issue as well, though I've made some strides recently. --Enzuru 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oath vs Affirmation

We have a bit of an edit war going on regarding whether Oath vs Affirmation is relevant; no secondary sources have been provided. I've searched for secondary sources relating to "Discrimination oath affirmation" and found nothing, and also searched the web. Why is Oath vs Affirmation relevant? Has it ever been relevant in the U.S.? Is there any example of it being relevant to discrimination in the U.S. It might be relevant in other countries, for examples this might be of interest if someone can track down which wording they are debating and the current status of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in the previous debate still visible on this talk page, and on your talk page, it is not discrimination. I do not consider it discrimination and it is in no way implied to be discrimination in the article. It is relevant because many people do not realize that affirmation is an option. If it was not an option, it would be discrimination. I've included it here specifically to say that it is NOT discrimination. I am trying to inform. What is your motivation? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that it has ever been considered an issue in USA, it is not relevant on this page, or at least not in the USA section. Have atheists in USA ever felt this is relevant to the issue of discrimination? If not, it is taking up space unnecessarily and leads the reader to wonder whether there is a discrimination issue. As I said on my talk, we need secondary sources that indicate this is relevant. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to show that it was viewed as discrimination in the United States as that would demonstrate WP:systemic bias. I have seen people, especially from Europe, asking this exact thing which is why I originally added it. Please cite the wiki policy that says relevance is determined by secondary sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"What you have seen" is the very definition of original research. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've seen is not in the article. What I've seen inspired me to add this. That does not violate wiki policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon, you have not cited policy saying that secondary sources determine relevance. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The subsection that I trimmed is in a section called "United States". i.e. it is implying that the oath vs affirmation is relevant to the topic of discrimination within USA. As I said above, I dont think it is relevant in the USA; it might be relevant in other countries, in which case it might be worth mentioning outside of the "United States" section.

Relevance is best measured by the quantity and quality of secondary sources; conversely if you cant find any secondary sources, it is likely to not be relevant, because you are the first person to decide it is relevant. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content: "All of Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Relevance of content is an essay, not a policy. The section is about the US and it informs people outside the US. This is exactly what Wikipedia should do. I asked you to quote policy and you have not. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans really do have a tendency for political correctness ! You should compare more often USA with other countries. The question of the oath vs. affirmation issue is that there is a double standard for all citizens, if they believe or not in God. If USA were a more true secular state, like most countries in Europe, there would be a secular, non religious, oath for every citizen. I think this makes the case and why this issue is also relevant. There is also a tendency to see that the oath is more valuable then the affirmation because of the reference to God, which seems to indicates even more distrust of non-theistic people.213.13.244.166 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Well, it is probably a good idea to summarise concisely (unless i missed it) what really is the specific dispute, people just dont have the time to read all article and talk pages to find out it themselves, well, unless of course, if the whole article is a problem. I was recently involved in an article called Discrimination against Biharis in India, whose title is now changed to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India. Interestingly, I identify similar problems here.

This sentence, "In the modern United Kingdom, the monarch must be a member of the Church of England, as he or she is the nominal head of this religion." if included in "British Monarch" article is not necessarily original research, but certainly is here.

yes, the preceding statement sounds like descrimination against atheists, but it also sounds like descrimination against all other religions. It sounds more like pro-Church of England than descrimination against other religions or atheists. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case as "38160784967018760687061 is an Integer" or "Sky is blue".

Yes, primary sources can be used descriptively, but the mere fact that the information included in any form, only with the help of primary sources, but, under the current title would make it original research. We need reliable secondary sources which explicitly call these statements as descrimination. Without that, all similar statements should go off the article. Docku: What up? 01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like discrimination against all other religions so it's not discrimination? What? In addition, the article does not explicitly call the examples discrimination. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds to me that way. it may sound different to you. That is exactly why it is original research, performed by you and me. Docku: What up? 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what to you, that discrimination against multiple groups is not discrimination? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out, that in the article you mentioned, Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, there are examples included whose sources do not include the word "discrimination." The first one I found was this: "Bihar has a per capita income of $148 a year against India's average of $997. Given this income dispartity, migrant workers moved to better paid locations and offered to work at lower rates.". AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

May be I did not mention that I am not yet in full agreement with that article and therefore, I dont want to go through specific examples. Do you also see a synthesis tag on the article. Docku: What up? 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't discrimination... being C of E is a qualification for the job of King or Queen of England. Part of the job discription of the Monarch is being the head of the Church of England, and you can not be head of a Church if you do not belong to that Church. Seriously, this is like arguing that the Anglican Church discriminates against Atheists because they require the Archbishop of Cantebury to be Anglican, or that the Catholic Church discriminates against Atheists because they reguire the Pope to be Catholic. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. The question seem to me to be one about the normal use of English. Also the position of Monarch is also hereditary, it therefore 'discriminates' against anyone who is not the heir to the throne. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've deleted it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Other articles that list discrimination without "discrimination" in the source

I understand that a big chunk of this dispute is whether or not my interpretation of policy is valid, and whether or not it would contradict a wider community consensus. Therefore, I am going to list here articles that do the exact same thing as has been done in this article: list an example of discrimination that is not called discrimination in the source. This list is by no means comprehensive; it took less than 15 minutes to create, with most of that time spent writing this section.AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Discrimination against Christians: "prohibition on Bibles"
• Antisemitism in the Arab world: "A Saudi government website initially stated that Jews would not be granted tourist visas to enter the country."
• Religious discrimination against Neopagans: "In 1999, in response to a statement by Representative Bob Barr (R-GA, now Libertarian) regarding Wiccan gatherings on military bases, the Free Congress Foundation called for U.S. citizens to not enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminated the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers."[3][4][5]

I thought this was answered before, just because it's done in other articles does not make it correct in this one? --Enzuru 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The argument was, "just because this is done in one article doesn't make it correct in this one." I've demonstrated that it is done in many articles. This is a demonstration of a wider consensus. I have evidence on my side. The deleting authors now have nothing but words. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, several times I've seen a very problematic issue continued through many articles. For example, a long time ago the articles on many points on Islamic history were all consistently Shi'a POV. And across the board one could find many articles, even FA-Class, breaking important rules and ciations. But, we'll see what other editors have to say. --Enzuru 08:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They argued what policy was. I argued what policy was. They argued what community consensus was. I showed what community consensus is. This debate is over. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Showing individual examples of things within articles that you think supports your side is not showing what consensus is. Showing articles full of spam links (of which there are many) doesn't prove that spam is allowed, just that n editor following policy hasn't taken care of it yet (or that an other spammer moved through since the last time spam was cleared out). DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not get away with, "every article is wrong." You've lost. Time to end this war after you've been so decisively refuted. Show your good faith and drop this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate must be over

I see that the deleting editors are no longer participating in the discussion. Good. I'll just delete the original research tags and continue trying to improve the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, unless you want it demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes consensus is as poor as your understanding of what constitutes original research. Silence is not consent; an argument quieting down for twenty minutes doesn't mean you are correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Two editors reverted without even posting a comment on the talk page. And you, gordon, listed your 4400 character deletion as a minor edit and did not include an edit summary. There goes your assumption of good faith. Shame on you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• No. People not responding within a timetable you set does not mean that you can do anything you want to the article. You do not WP:OWN this article. The bottom line here, AzureFury, is that you can ignore what multiple editors said if you want, but you cannot edit the article while ignoring a very clear consensus. Based upon the conversation here, we have demonstrated that you CANNOT remove the OR tags and make othr edits as spelled out to you above until you somehow get a consensus of editors to believe your concept of what policy means. Good luck on that. Until then you know you are wrong and will not be allowed to get away with what you want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You want to talk about ignoring editors? You are ignoring the wider consensus. I have demonstrated conclusively how policy is handled in this situation. You do not get to ignore policy because of your skewed interpretation of WP:OR. I am not going to listen to another word you have to say (assuming you were going to say anything else and not just edit war) unless you can explain to me why we should ignore the community consensus on the interpretation of WP:OR in this case. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, I suggest that you do listen to what others are trying to explain to you here. Multiple editors have disagreed with your interpretation of WP:OR, both on this page and now on the WP:NORN. I am joining them. Much of this article appears to me to be a classic example of original research, in which editors have added examples of something that they view to be discriminative, and citing them to the primary sources (laws, regulations etc). We need to find secondary sources which describe significant examples of discrimination, as described below. Finding examples in other WP articles that also violate policy does nothing to prove what the policy is supposed to be. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I've refuted this citing the very policy you accuse this article of violating. A reasonable educated person can infer that these examples are discrimination. If you disagree with my interpretation, we ask the community. The community says I am right. Repeating your argument does not make it less refuted, no matter how many editors you get to echo it. This page will remain as it is until someone responds to and refutes my argument. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to date, the community, as exemplified by multiple editors, administrators, one outgoing and one incoming arbitrator, as well as commentators with expertise in OR from the WP:NORN, strongly disagrees with you and has explained why. You are showing signs of page ownership issues here ("This page will remain as it is until someone responds to and refutes my argument"). I realize that you probably put a lot of work into this article, but I strongly urge you to consider that you might be in error in this matter. We've all been there I am sure. It really is no big deal. --Slp1 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying you have consensus and yet every article on wikipedia disagrees with you. You've not yet responded to my argument. The article will remain unchanged. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

First, let me say that the article needs sources that specifically mention discrimination against atheism. It doesn't matter what is done in other articles, that has nothing to do with consensus although it might simply show that there are a number of other bad articles.

Secondly, I'm an atheist.

It should be easy to find good sources. Most countries have various relevant associations, eg in the UK there is, among others, the British Humanist Assocation.

Here's a source: [6] which mentions discrimination in the Scouts against atheists. dougweller (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, after I argue policy, and then show that the community consensus agrees with my interpretation of policy, your next argument is that the community is wrong? The deleting editors are getting desperate. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to back Doug and Azure here. I'm a Christian, but I'm actually keen that reliably sourced persecution or discrimination against atheists in the name of Christianity be documented reliably. David Berman looks like an excellent source on the subject. I'm sure there are others, including Christian sources.

As Doug does above, I think we need to start with gathering reliable sources, then the hard part is reading and summarising them.

Azure is a great asset to this article, because he is motivated to seek out, read and present this material. I'm happy to help defend his efforts. An excellent thing about his work would be that it would provide a motivation for some who might care about Christian (and other) answers to criticism to do the hard work of sourcing and summarising those.

My theory is that bibliographies ought to solve disagreements. One Azure with half a dozen sources beats 20 editors with nothing but opinions that can't be sourced. There are plenty of mature Wikipedians who will back him in such a situation.

Brilliant work from Doug above, sensible, non-personal intervention from admin below. Don't be discouraged Azure. There are people who want you to contribute sources here. I'll try to whip up a quick bibliography to get you moving forwards again. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• David Burnett. "Atheism and the Courts". Working Paper. Social Science Research Network, May 2006. [abstract only]
• "If it comes to burning somebody at the stake for not believing it, then it is worth while to remember that after all he may be right, and it is not worth while to persecute him." — Bertrand Russell, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? A Plea for Tolerance in the Face of New Dogmas", 1947.
• "Another obstacle to the identification of early modern expresions of unbelief is the extreme persecution suffered by those who openly subverted official dogma, which resulted in the need to express unbelief in an evasive manner. In Spain and Italy, the existence of the Inquisition as an official organization ..." — Christopher B. Weimer, Echoes and Inscriptions: Comparative Approaches to Early Modern Spanish Literatures, (Bucknell University Press, 2000), p. 223.

That'll do for now. I have other priorities. Azure's gift to Wikipedia is having this as more of a priority than people like me, but absolutely as much ability to seek out and find such references. Carpe diem, Azure! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your only option

Since I have irrefutably demonstrated that trivial examples of discrimination may be included without a secondary source according to WP:OR, the only option left to the deleting editors is to cite specific examples and provide a convincing argument that they do not satisfy the definition of discrimination. I should not have had to explain this, but in doing so I have demonstrated my good faith in the face of unapologetically stubborn opposition. I listened to your comments about the UK example. I deleted it. Rather than gut the article, why don't we try to improve it one example at a time? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to relax, Azure. Not everyone's against you. I agree that articles might as well contain all manner of unsourced rubbish and be improved by sourcing counter-claims one by one. Trivial, well-known examples are real, and there is a limit to the scepticism that should be tolerated if thrown against such things. People misquote Jimbo on this matter regularly. Aggressive removal of unsourced slander against living people is mandatory, and unsourced rubbish can be removed at any time; however, non-slanderous rubbish does not have to be removed, sometimes allowing it to stand is part of proceeding calmly towards consensus and taking time to encourage defenders of such stuff to remove it themselves.

Stay calm, Azure. Wikipedia has not been, and will not be built in a day. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

AzureFury has been blocked for 24 hours by another administrator, and I have also reverted the edits and blocked the IP of a probable block-evading sock.

For the future, all editors are warned not to edit war. Honestly, in the great scheme of things, this article really is not that important. Having said that, there have been multiple independent opinions from experienced editors that this article is full of original research and synthesis. Secondary sources need to be found to back up the claims made here that these laws etc are discriminatory. This is important per no original research which requires claims to be directly and explicitly supported by the source used, meaning in this case that these laws etc have been considered by other sources to be discriminative against atheists. Proper secondary sourcing is also important as otherwise we may be giving undue weight to certain claims: unless claims of discrimination against atheists has been noted by others, then it would be inappropriate of us to mention it in WP. As Doug Weller pointed out above, for many claims finding secondary sources should not be difficult with a bit of leg work. In the meantime, please do not restore the disputed material without consensus. Contrary to AzureFury's suggestion above, the onus is on the adding or readding editor to justify the inclusion of material. If AzureFury wishes to argue for inclusion, then that is fine, but s/he needs to get consensus for here first. And in my view, there is also plenty of other material in this article that needs proper secondary sourcing or deletion. --Slp1 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)