Talk:State atheism

French revolution

None of the "cited" articles applies the neologism "state atheism" to the Terror.

See page 153 of this paper "In the current public realm, the misconception that the Terror was an atheistic phenomenon is a common assertion..."

-- Callinus (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

the issue is atheism not terror. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources you added apply the term "state atheism" to the French Terror. The term "state atheism" is a translation of the Russian term "gosateizm" used in the USSR - no published source applies this term to the French Revolution or the Terror. The word "atheism" in one source, (that is heavily dubious given the paper above) does not establish that WP:COATRACK material should be included linking the French Revolution to the USSR. The only source that attempted that was a POV diatribe. -- Callinus (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

how we use "state atheism" is stated in the first sentence: a "government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism" and that is the meaning used by Robespierre who attacked government agents who were trying to set up atheism as a state policy. The USSR, by the way, often referred to the French Rev as a model. Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So that's a pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issue - the topic is not actually defined by any professional source.

gosateizm was an official policy and a word the USSR applied to themselves to describe their own policy - articles should not be written on neologisms used by opinion column writers.

The lead section should not be written from the perspective of sectarian opinion columns. It's original research and a synthesis of published works to apply a new term in a way that isn't used in professional, published research.

The Catholic encyclopedia does not use the word "atheism" once in the article on the French Terror, let alone "state atheism" - a POV term only used by Alistair McGrath.

There are professionally published academic resources that discuss religious rights in the Soviet Union, and deal with "gosateizm" in an independent, academic manner, and aren't published to push populist opinion to Daily Mail readers. -- Callinus (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the policy on WP:NEO is to write articles about topics from an academic perspective, not just repeat how populist usage of a term is used.

Government bodies like the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom have standing in international relations and exist to promote freedom of religion. Populist literature only exists to promote sectarian causes domestically, frequently publishing on trivial issues like whether christmas trees are called "Christmas trees" - note that the USCIRF does not publish on trivial issues, because they want to be taken seriously in their treatment of death row cases (eg Saeed Abedini, Raif Badawi, Mariam Ibrahim). -- Callinus (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on State atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010050756/http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf to http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

The lead section of this article states that state atheism was an official policy of anti-clericalism. The article on anti-clericalism states that anti-clericalism refers to historical movements that oppose the clergy. State atheism was opposed to religion as a whole, not only the clergy. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that when one thing is expressly listed, all other things in the same class are intentionally excluded. Because state atheism was not only a policy of anti-clericalism, it's misleading to only indicate that state atheism was an official policy of anti-clericalism in the lead section. Squideshi (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point, and I see that the cited supporting source is very clear that it is about state atheism, not just anti-clericalism. Here I've WP:BOLDly replaced the initial part of the lead section with its content prior to this 2015 edit, relocated the replaced material to the Soviet Union section, and excised the mention of anti-clericalism from the relocated material. This likely needs more work; please revert or edit further as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What is state atheism?

I'm asking why Cuba is considered a country which promotes state atheism despite the fact that since 1991 its constitution recognises "freedom of religion" and Laos not even if its constitution allows freedom as well. It's true that both countries have experienced some religious persecutions even in recent times. I'm asking if state atheism means "the government of a state restricts the religious practice in some way" even if the Constitution says there is freedom of worship.--Carnby (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Who defines the 'state atheism' concept?

I won't revert-war over a tag, but instead, I'll turn this into an opportunity to elaborate my questioning of the claim:

"State atheism is the name given by scholars to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes"

The term "state atheism" is not present in any mainstream reference I can find, and the 'scholarly reference' that is supposed to be a justification for reverting leads only to a badly-reviewed [1] not-even-print 'dictionary' (really, a collection of 'atheist terminology', as the book own description says, "neologisms by or about atheists"[2]). What's more, the dictionary entry does not at all reflect the claim it is purported to support, as it says only 'is the name given to' without any mention of 'by who' let alone 'scholarly'... adding 'by scholars' to the claim 'because' the publishing house ('Oxford Quick Reference Online'?) is 'scholarly' is seemingly intentionally misleading WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

If the term is as common and authorative as the claim tries to suggest, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it. If not, the claim must be changed to reflect the concept's real origins, or it should be removed altogether, as, as is, it goes against several Wikipedia policies. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

User:1990'sguy, You've been extensively editing the article since the above was posted, which makes it seem as though you are pointedly ignoring it (and WP:POLICY). Since you have already demonstrated that you will revert any edit you 'don't like', if you continue to ignore this question, I will have no choice but to bring outside attention to it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I originally was pretty confused too on this term so I tried to clarify the tag that was there to something more adequate. You added the "who" tag last month right? But now that you mentioned it here more explicitly, I see what you mean. Looking back at the source...the term and definition is in there and the source is from Oxford University Press. Seems appropriate since the authors of the Oxford reference are also involved in research on atheism and non-religion and contributed to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism too (one of them was one of the editors for that handbook). So it is not by some random people making a dictionary - it is actually by experts on atheism. I think you have a point in asking about if anyone has used it and yes it seems to have been used quite a bit. I found examples from journals pretty easily such as [3] and [4]. Here is another one from Albania [5] (if you have access to the whole article you can see it). Perhaps some clarification on the source itself would help since it was missing publication details and it did look like some random source at first glance, when it was not.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it doesn't anwer anything. Again, the 'source' is a collection of, in the book author's own words, "neologisms by or about atheists"[6], and it says nothing about the origin of the term.

By what I can see, the term is hardly used in any 'scholarly' works, but when it was used in anything approaching that (and these were almost exclusively religious-author works, or works speaking of those works/authors), there are two distinct meanings over two periods:

1. Pre-WWII: the few uses I could find used the term to describe any government that separated church and state (in education, namely) [7]
2. Post-1950: It was a term coined by religious fundamentalists to blame the evils of religion-suppressing governments on 'atheism' (to promote religiosity locally) [8][9]

The entire Google Books list, organised by date [10]

I'm sure one can try to find exceptions, but evidence shows that its use is overwhelmingly these two cases.

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually from your list of google books [11] nearly all of them are from academic sources since they come from academic publishers. So for instance, "Introducing Anthropology of Religion: Culture to the Ultimate" by Jack David Eller (a textbook) comes from Routledge, "Religious Actors and International Law" by Ioana Cismas (a textbook) comes form Oxford University Press, etc. Some of these authors from your google list are atheists too such as Jack David Eller (on China) and Julian Baggini (on contrast with other options like state secualrity). Pretty much most of them in the first page come from academic sources. So the term is used quite a bit in textbooks, references, handbooks, etc. The search for origin of the term is certainly interesting but the fact that it is used should be enough to at least establish that the term has been around. Interestingly, in google scholar I get +700 hits with "state atheism" [12] so it has quite a bit of usage there too.

Certainly you can add different meanings to the article if you find some. If you have found 2 distinct meanings: Pre-WWII and POST-1950 as you said, then you can certainly expand on the definitions if the source defines it to some extent. I don't think that would be a problem since multiple meanings are possible. Considering that "atheism" does have a history of multiple meanings ranging from not believing in the "right" gods but believing in others, or being forsaken by the gods, or rejecting all gods, or mere absence of gods, etc; I imagine there would be multiple meanings for "state atheism". Maybe a "history" section could be added?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't 'interpret' evidence or sources here, nor pick those we 'like' the most. We can indicate a preponderance of sources, though, and this should even be a requirement (if it isn't already).

Nor can one claim a source is 'suitable' simply because it contains the term; it has to demonstrably reflect the claim made, or it is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR, or simply false.

It's the lede definition, and the entire article is built on that definition, so the origin of the term and who uses it that way must be indicated in the lede. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is why the source is cited per definition - so that readers can see where that particular definition comes from. You are open to find more and add those citations. Our job is not to make WP:SYN of what one editor thinks "many" sources are defining. If a source says "state atheism" means A and another source says "state atheism" means B then citations per each definition can be added right next to each definition such as: "state atheism" means A (add citation) and can also mean B (add citation). There would be no issue. Since "atheism" has many definitions, even at its origins in ancient Greece I don't think any one definition would be a limiting factor. More than one definition is possible, but the sources used to define a term should have a clear definition like the "Dictionary of Atheism" does, no?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

But WP:SYNTH is exactly what that source is, as it does not indicate nor reflect anything the claim says: it simply contains the term. Again (again), in the author's own words, it is a collection of "neologisms by or about atheists"[13]. It does not indicate in any way the author of the term or who uses it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: your 'Google scholar' link (that shows results that, for the most part, have content that isn't even accessible; only the authorship is clear) reflect the same preponderance/usage as my 'Google books' example. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PPS: Your 'meanings' section idea is a very good one. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on the publisher (Oxford) description. I was wondering about what you said - "collection of "neologisms by or about atheists". But that is not how the publisher characterizes the dictionary, no? I mean it clearly says: This new dictionary provides definitions of terms related to the subject of atheism, ranging from those of historic importance, including the history of the term ‘atheist’ itself, to crucial concepts in the contemporary study of atheism and related topics, such as nonreligion and postsecular." As such it covers many things (history, events, concepts) and also covers neologicsms, organizations, etc because they are contemporary subjects on atheism. Plus it also says "Atheism is a growing subject of study with a significant scholarly presence emerging online, and many of the new terms covered represent the first authoritative definitions for this subject. So the dictionary is not reducible to "neologisms by or about atheists". Now if you don't like the definition, then please go ahead and look for another source that is just as authoritative as this one and we can add that one too. Many definitions are possible, but if you cannot find another one, then there is no point in entertaining this further. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

One more thing to note, you cannot call out WP:SYN on a source. That policy applies to us editors, not the source. It says - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Clearly this is not combining sources since the Dictionary is one source. There is nothing to combine.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You're dissecting (to distract from the main point), and again, we don't 'interpret' sources ('tell people what sources really say), nor use two sources for two parts that 'conclude' something together... those are both examples of WP:SYNTH, and that's exactly what the lede claim does. The source in no way indicates what the claim states (a claim that would suggest 'everyone knowledgable': it is, in fact, but an empty appeal to authority), period.

But both your example and mine show that usage of this term is overwhelmingly by one point of view/origin (a religious one) with two different meanings across two time periods. How could one not want to make this clear to the reader? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by we don't "interpret" sources here. The only way to not interpret sources is to just quote them, no? The leaves the context to reside in the source by the source. And from the definition on the lead right now, it is pretty much verbatim from the source. Do you you want to quote more from it? Please go ahead and find another usage of "state atheism" that is out there and we can add that to the article. Why keep on persisting about one definition by an authoritative reliable source, when I have said from the beginning that it would be good if you can add more on top of what is already there? Find another source that shows an alternative definition and add it. Multiple definitions are possible. Does that help clarify? Like on the "atheism" page right now, it has the format of "atheism" means A (citations 1,2,3) and can also mean B (citations 4,5) and can also mean C (citations 6,7,8). Multiple definitions from multiple sources. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what there is not to understand, and that 'extra' bit added to the 'pretty much verbatim' part that makes it against multiple Wikipedia policies (as I've already explained at least three times already). If the 'by scholars' was removed, the claim would match the source, but, as the term is absent from most all non-religious-origin references and history works, the issue returns again and we're back to square one.

And, again, one can't find multiple 'scholarly sources' (according to the contributor's POV) that use the term and say 'scholars say': that, too is verboten on Wikipedia for multiple reasons; the source has to say 'scholars say' as well.

The only way around that is to say that "A Dictionary of Atheism" (sic) defines State Atheism as..."... but that source is a practically pamphlet not-even-print e-book published by 'Oxford Quick Reference Online'... since the claim is suggesting that the term is common knowledge to authority, surely a better source/origin/definition should not be hard to find. If the claim is to stay as-is, that is.

But yes, listing the multiple definitions from multiple origins from multiple sources is fine, we've already come up with a few together just today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at it, the "who" tag you put in really did not even belong in the sentence because it had a source for it. It was redundant. If people wanted to see where it came from, it was there. The fact that you and I found hundreds of uses of "state atheism" using google books (even a century of people using it by your find - I saw some uses from the 1800s from your list) and google scholar means that it is in currency and by the number of recent works using it, it looks like it is rising. This is probably why the term actually made into the dictionary. Dictionaries in general are full of terms that are not overwhelmingly used. But they are used enough to make the cut. The source is by experts of research on atheism and the publisher is an academic publisher. Merely saying it is in electronic form does not diminish its quality considering that the Encyclopedia Britannica is also an academic source that is only found electronically now. Also numerous academic journals are only found electronically too. Find another definition from reputable source and add it. You mentioned [14] earlier which defines it as something free, without god, and destroying parents rights. Maybe I can soften the language to "usually refers to" or "refers to" (leaving room for different defs). Other defs can be added with "...it can also mean..." and/or attribute. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see the 'need' to explain after the claim "X is the name given to", then... that's troublesome, and makes further discussion pointless, especially when, again, the term is absent from all dictionaries and encyclopaedias (that I can find)... and having to 'settle' for a e-book (and why no other?) as a source speaks volumes about that, doesn't it? But, as we both demonstrated earlier today, the origin of the term is clear: why not make that clear to the reader as well?

I can't repeat myself a fifth time, so if you (or the particularly revert-prone contributor I pinged twice about this who, even after several major edits to this same article since, seemingly refuses to respond) still 'can't see the problem', it's better to invite outside opinions on this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...Just realized and important factor in all of this. This dictionary is actually a specialized dictionary on a specialized and very narrow topic - atheism. It is in the same vein as there are specialized dictionaries on narrow topics such as "The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics", "A Dictionary of Chemistry (Oxford Quick Reference)", "The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion", "A Dictionary of Hinduism (Oxford Quick Reference)", "The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy", "Barron's Law Dictionary", etc. None of these are general dictionaries so many terms from ALL of these dictionaries will not be found in generalized dictionaries or even be used by most people. Specialists and researchers have their own specialized terms and specialized dictionaries like the "Dictionary of Atheism" serve specialists more than the general public but these dictionaries make specialized terms accessible to a wide audience including the general public.

Most "regular" people do not focus on learning specialized terms from Math, Law, Chemistry, Philosophy, Hinduism, or Atheism, but that does not diminish the fact that people like specialists AND interested laymen do use these terms.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If the term is so commonly used, finding proper (and many!) secular references using/defining the term (that are not references to non-secular works) should not be a problem at all.

Again (again), the term is overwhelmingly particular to non-secular works (yet the lede suggests that the term is common to (unspecified, suggesting 'all') authorative publishers and works). We both acknowledge this particularity (and have even demonstrated it), so, again, the specifity of the term should be made clear... with or without 'by scholars', that claim does quite the opposite. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter by whom a particular word is used. Early in its inception, the term "agnosticism" was overwhelmingly used by non-theists in small circles in the late 1800s, not theists. Then as time went by it gained popular currency in philosophy then it became even more popular to what it is today. It became a specialized term when academics started using it and talking about to some extent. The fact that 'state atheism' is found in +700 articles on google scholar + numerous academic books (textbooks, handbooks, references) + even experts of atheism and secularity research put it in specialized dictionary means it has currency. If the issue is merely of attribution, then attribute. Its a simple fix. Go for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want me to comment, I'll comment (I have more important fish to fry, however). I just looked at the source, and it is a scholarly source published by Oxford University Press. As Ramos1990 just pointed out, a Google Scholar search will show other scholarly sources about the term. If you really want to know who uses the term "state atheism," look at the RSs -- it's scholars. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The origins/quality/content of that (e-)source (and others) was demonstrated way back in and several times through the discussion, so repeating myself further would be pointless. Let's see what others have to say about it.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You are asserting one position, and Ramos1990 another. Two different positions, and I obviously align with the latter. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue boiled down to attribution in the end which I did encourage User:ThePromenader to do. Why this has not been done by him to resolve his own issue about who defined the term (he even suggested the attribution solution), is a bit puzzling since the solution was agreed upon and even encouraged. Even adding more definitions was agreed upon and encouraged.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

'Voting' does not 'override' WP:POLICY, nor can it 'override' deomonstrably WP:SYNTH and WP:OR claims. All I'm doing here is trying to make things clear to you to avoid edit-warring, as I feel that either of you will revert without valid justification any changes made you don't 'like' (as 1990sguy has already done twice [15][16]), also because you're 'more'... that's not how Wikipedia editing works.

We did not agree on any such 'only the attribution' thing today, rather the answers to my demonstrations of WP:POLICY transgressions have been more to the tune of 'but... it's fine how it is!'. So you won't oppose changing the lede so that it expresses the nature of the overwhelming majority of sources/authors using the term and whence the term originated? That would be fabulous indeed, and points for all of us. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim about WP:SYN is not applicable to the source and the fact that the source exists invalidates any claim on WP:OR since that policy says if no source exists for a claim. The source makes the claim and it is reliable. I am following wikipedia policy accepting what a reliable source says on a particular topic. But what it looks like to me is that you are just complaining because you do not like what it says when you can certainly add other definitions. I already said that we can define the term in different ways as long as you have reliable sources that provide alternative definitions. Are there no alternative definitions? How about this, can you provide an alternative definition for the term and provide sources for that? I get +700 hits for the term on google scholar. If you can, then please add them to the article so that it shows diversity on the understanding the term! I have said many times over and over again multiple definitions are possible! This article can be expanded further. I will wait for other editors to comment as this is getting repetitive and solutions have already been suggested multiple times.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I attributed per your suggestion earlier. That should help accommodate some of your concerns for the moment. Will see if others comment.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So, no. The claim now reads "according to Oxford's Dictionary of Atheism.", but the title of the book is "A Dictionary of Atheism" (an e-book published by 'Oxford online quick reference'). And why only that source: is a badly-acclaimed online collection of neogisms 'about aheists' (that doesn't even disclose the origin of every neogism, at least not in this case) really the best there is out there? Since even this change tries to imply that the term is widely accepted by (all, even secular) authorative authors, why is it so hard to find a reference (or collection of references) that actually demonstrates that? But, for sure, it's a small step in the right direction. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI - See here for the the nature of Oxford Quick References from OUP's site [Oxford References- Answers with Authority http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/about].Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My point about the inaccurate title ignored, I changed it to the real title, and was kind enough to not indicate its 'online quick reference' (not even print book) nature within its Oxford University Press parent company (and indicate 'Oxford University Press', but even this is a form of deception that doesn't sit well with me (but, hey, compromise). At least now it 'sounds authorative' while not technically offending any WP:POLICY. I also formatted the quote to demonstrate that it is, indeed, a quote.

Every neologism has an author and most common use, but, again, this source divulges neither (which is odd in a book that claims to provide information about such terms). But at least now that part of the lede is 100% truthful. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What a badly formatted RfC. Who (what) defines "state atheism"? Obviously, all acceptable sources under the WP framework. I don't see why this article should be an exception. And BTW Cuba does not fit to the category of the country practicing state atheism. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm a newbie to RfC. I'll close it and start another one. Noted about Cuba, too - thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuba does not appear to currently be an atheist state, but it once was. I noted this in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's bad practice to do that just after someone voiced opposition. Unless the document you cite calls it an 'atheist state', you cannot 'attribute' whatever happened there to that neologism. What are you doing, trying to attribute every religion-suppressing despot's act in history to 'atheism'? This article has exploded since I last read it a few years ago. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

First off, I was not contradicting the other editor. Cuba is not an atheist state today, but it once was in the past. I clarified this. Also, I am not "attributing evil acts to atheism." What the sources say is that these governments were officially atheist. The anti-religious policies came from the official government position of state atheism, not necessarily from the hearts of the people in charge. There is a difference. I understand that people of all stripes are often motivated by more than purist religious ideals. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That is an... interesting interpretation of events that doesn't address at all your timing that was my point.

'State Atheism' is a neologism and even your gotta-have "A Dictionary of Atheism" 'scholarly source' says as much, itself[17]. I've found that Wikipedia has strict policies about this [18][19], and the before-last policy link's "In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions"[20] describes this case pretty neatly.

What's more, in the discussions over the past weeks, I've seen the term 'coatrack' thrown around, and after reading, that, too seems to describe a lot of what's going on in this article: it hangs factual events on a title (or 'thing' that is in fact but a nelogism) not even mentioned in the sources supporting them. I don't know how many levels of WP:POLICY that transgresses, but I'm still not done reading. It seems that Wikipedia policy has evolved quite a bit since I last looked, and that's a good thing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ThePromenader, good job on the attribute. That is what you should have done early on since I agreed with you on that and encouraged it. Anyways, it looks like Cuba is called specifically a "state atheism" in one source and "atheist state" in another in the recent add. I suppose the qualifier "Until 1992" sets chronological context too. Just my observation at the moment. A quick question, is the term "state atheism" really a neologism? From your google books list that you provided by date, the term goes way back to at least 1859, no? Other terms like "agnosticism" (1800s) and "atheism" (1600s) were neologisms in the recent past too so not sure what is the point of treating any word, even if new, as nonexistent or invalid when it does exist and is gaining currency. Isn't that how languages evolve? "New Atheism" was coined in 2006 so it is a way more recent neologism, but do you think the term is invalid since it only 11 years old? Time does not seem like the determining factor since new terms would be impossible to be invented, no?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you guys were WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit-warring, and a bit of discussion was necessary for me to figure out what changes you would or would not revert again.

All I did was make the claim echo the source, and since the term is absent from most all secular references and history books (so that we could actually demonstrate 'commonly known and accepted (by all scholars)'), the source itself had to be cited as the source of the claim. I'm not sure how 'solid' that is, and it still does not tell the complete () story it should, as the source itself does not indicate the neologism's (and it is one: see answer to 1990sguy just above) author or what circles it is used in. I'm sure that book got bad reviews and little attention (aside from here ; ) just for that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Google is showing me 803,000 uses and Google Scholar is showing me 750 uses of the term. So it there is some use of it, including among scholars. Seesms largely to be talking about the former Soviet Union policies, but other contexts are also used. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw some on China, Albania, and now even Cuba (cited earlier in this discussion too).

Just a side note on Neologism wikipedia policy - it clearly does say "Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources."

But since the term "state atheism" goes back to at least 1859 per User:ThePromenader's list from google books by date [21] I don't think this is an issue. I have to admit that the "secular references" criteria that User:ThePromenader mentioned is an absurd criteria considering that atheism is linked to "religion topics" fundamentally. It has the word 'theism' in it. Anyways, looking at User:ThePromenader's expectation that the term be found in references and history texts....uh it is per his google books list. Here are a few examples from his list: "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism", "State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law (Studies in Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights)", "Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular", "Eastern Europe and the Challenges of Modernity, 1800-2000", "Religious Actors and International Law", "Architecture and Armed Conflict: The Politics of Destruction", etc.

I would agree with User:ThePromenader completely if the word was not being used in these kinds of scholarly sources, but that does not seem to be the case. Considering that clear (and silly) neologisms like Flying Spaghetti Monster (this term was invented by an atheist in 2005) has an extensive wikipedia article on it, I don't see how anyone would object to a more serious term like "state atheism". Originally I sided with User:ThePromenader in questioning the term, but after all this talk it looks like I was incorrect in doubting it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to cite the number of google (books, scholar) results without looking at the nature of them: they are overwhelmingly nonsecular (namely Christian), and one cannot pick out a few exceptions (without noting that many of these are, in fact, citing these non-secular works and claims?) and claim that they represents the whole. Actually, the term seems to have been coined as part of an "atheist atrocities fallacy" [22] movement begun in the 1950s that sought to attribute all of the world's ills to 'atheism'... this article mimics it perfectly.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster example is a perfect one of what an article on a WP:NEOLOGISM should be: it denotes the origin, use and purpose of the term (and why can't that be done here?), and nothing more; this article is like one taking themselves-citatable real-world events and blaming them on the Flying Spaghetti Monster by listing them under that title.

Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches for "flying spaghetti monster" turn up a respective 522,000 [23], 4,450 [24] and 739 [25] results, by the way ; ). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The "nature of them" is irrelevant since it is used by people who composed text on secular/religious subjects like the "The Oxford Handbook of Atheism". It carries no weight as to who uses it more since you cannot control people's language usage. People accept terms and use them as necessary. Did you know that "Atheism" is a term invented and used overwhelmingly by theists? And does that "nature" make any difference to secularists who use it to describe their worldviews or themselves? What matters is that it is used, no? The "nature" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also irrelevant for the same reasons. You said "an article on a WP:NEOLOGISM should be: it denotes the origin, use and purpose of the term (and why can't that be done here?), and nothing more". Fair enough. The use and purpose is provided by at least the Oxford Dictionary of Atheism which is authoritative on atheism research terms, concepts ,etc (others can be added that you found but you have not put in effort to do so) and the origin it seems you have been able to solve yourself when you made "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" distinctions using Google books. You made this origins split, which shows that you have answered your own concerns as to approximately when it emerged. So what is the issue?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, because "people who composed text on secular/religious subjects" is the term's relevence quite demonstrable through those results, and its nature. It's a neologism.

I haven't 'made any effort'... to find evidence for the claim I've been trying to change or remove? The very reason I wanted to change/remove it is that I could find no evidence for it. And when the only source a claim-defender can find doesn't even indicate the source of the claim, only echoes it... go figure.

I have done my own personal analysis of my reasearch, and we agree on those conclusions (as they are demonstrable), and it is even demonstrable through google results when and how the term was created and used, but the thing is: we can't present google results as a citation or 'evidence', nor can we compose a synthesis of those results, that would be WP:OR. Instead, one has to find a source that indictates itself the origin and use of the term, because the citation has to echo the claim (I did find one source covering the post-1950s era [26]). The same goes for any event attributed to that neologism: if the source doesn't attribute the event to the neologism, neither can the claim. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: that last WP:policy alone [27][28], if it were applied, would eliminate 9/10ths of this article. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(intermission music)

I expected some protest (or at least some rationalisation) at my last comment, but the silence is telling.

But since then, I've taken the time to thoroughly read up on this: effectively, most all of this article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR possibly WP:ATTACK content hung on a WP:NEOLOGISM WP:COATRACK. I don't know how many levels of WP:POLICY are transgressed, here.

The only possible way 'state atheism' can be an article is if it is about the neologism itself: who coined it, who uses it, when and how it is used (and what purpose it serves).

Yet, looking at recent activity, were someone to remove every claim that doesn't have "state atheism" in the reference purporting to support it, I'm sure that will be reverted (edit-warred)... instead, I think it would be better to bring more eyes to this from the get-go. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: What to do with this article?

• Upon examination of its content and sources, most of this article is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (and arguably WP:ATTACK) content hung on a WP:NEOLOGISM WP:COATRACK.

The 'State atheism' (or 'atheist state') neologism is of sectarian (apologist, anti-atheist) coinage [29], apparently created as part of a sectarian drive to pin every evil and religion-suppression act in history on 'atheism' [30]. Even the only available 'source' (a poorly-reviewed and uncited-by-any-author e-book compiled by religious authors [31]) defining the term is, by its own description, a collection of "neologisms by or about atheists" [32].

I'm not sure whether it is best to, according to WP:NOTNEO, delete the article outright, or whether to reduce it to a description of the 'state atheism' neologism itself (who coined it, how it is used, etc.). Other suggestion: of the content here could be moved (unaltered) to a separate article about the 'Goetzism' (the name the Soviet government gave their religion-suppressing dictate) that the neologism apparently has its roots in, or this article could be transformed into the same.

For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "What to do with this article?" Is the same discussion as "RfC: Who defines the 'state atheism' concept?" above

Just adding a few other categories for the "request for comments" here that were originally there since this is the exact same discussion as the section above "Who defines the 'state atheism' concept?". Here is where the original categories for comment request were added by User:Promenader [33]. Nothing new has been added, but the discussion can continue here, if there is even a need for that. It had already been put up for RfC recently.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)