Talk:List of irreligious organizations

Creation of the list

As this list was created fairly quickly and from a variety of sources, it is possible that it contains groups that do not meet the criteria. If you remove a group, please give a brief reason why. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria should be clearly defined to exclude organizations that are not notable enough for their own articles. Many of the groups listed are local and very small groups. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. The list in its current state would be comparable to a list of Christian organizations that includes the little Baptist church just down the street. National groups that have received substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources (such as the SSA) should definitely go in a list like this, but not most local groups (such as AHA at UW-Madison). Nick Graves 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do this without discussing it with the list's creators (not God, us). Motorrad-67 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Permission from the article's creator is NOT required to edit any article. If you don't wish your work to be edited then simply don't create it. ---- WebHamster 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm the creator, not Motorrad-67. ;) See my other comment below. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know, I was speaking in general terms as a direct response to the 'instruction'. ---- WebHamster 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policies, such as WP:OWN, WP:NOT and WP:LISTS. My edit was not vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what constitutes vandalism. The list in its current state, with several local and non-notable groups included, is not encyclopedic. Nick Graves 21:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually did avoid including several groups that I thought were non-notable. I welcome a discussion of criteria regarding groups that should not be on this list—it is a very long list (and I'm mostly responsible for that). However, before we delete all of this hard work of mine (and Motorrad-67), perhaps we could have the discussion first? I see no harm in waiting a day or two to clean it up. Agreed? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. Motorrad-67 22:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily lists of this type tend to use the "notable" disclaimer, if only to prevent every little pissant group adding itself to the list. Notability is easy enough to declare in Wikipedia terms, ie the group is notable enough for an article, then it's notable enough for inclusion in the list. A definitive criteria is absolutely needed though, as further on down the line this article will deteriorate. An open-ended inclusion ethos such as there is now also limits the culling of obvious non-candidates as there is no argument against their inclusion. A recipe for disaster. ---- WebHamster 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes a lot of sense, but I was surprised by how many of even the more obviously notable groups (I'll definitely agree there are some borderline cases here) don't have Wikipedia entries—AAAA, for example, which was the first such group in the US! Obviously, one solution is to create articles for each of these, but that'll take some time. Perhaps we can get WikiProject:Atheism to help out?

Also, I'm definitely open to help in creating a more definitive criteria. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

@everyone: THIS section of WP:LIST might be illuminating. It seems to define list articles as: "...articles consisting of a list of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events." While I think this stricture is needlessly conservative, it seems to exclude by definition items for which there are no current WP articles. Anchoress 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some very notable groups without articles

Here are two obvious ones: American Association for the Advancement of Atheism and Godless Americans Political Action Committee (Yes, you're detecting an American bias there.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, that last one is a redirect to American Atheists. Although related, it really deserves its own article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If a group has its own web page presence on the internet, that should be enough whether or not it has a wp article. Motorrad-67 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Google. If anything, in line with WP:EL any link that is an external link should be excluded as it is discouraged to have external links within an article itself.---- WebHamster 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that emphatically! The list of atheist organizations with a web presence would be enormous!! Also, note that AAAA doesn't have a web presence, AFAIK. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AAAA has apparently been defunct since prior to the WWW. However, they were an important (though embarrassing) part of US atheism 1930-1980 or so. 128.143.34.180 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a note on the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Atheism page requesting input here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert war between User:WebHamster and User:Motorrad-67

Guys, cut it out OK? WebHamster, I think on balance you're probably right about the deletion, but it's not a life or death situation right now - why not just leave it for a day or so until we can discuss it on the talkpage a bit more? Motorrad, I think the removals will be revealed to be justified. Both of you, WP:3RR looming! This little article isn't worth it!! We're all here for the same reason, to build a better encyclopedia. Battling edit summaries isn't the way to do it! Anchoress 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. This is one of the things about WP I hate and makes it unpleasant -- when someone like Hamster forces his opinion on others ignoring discussion. I will not be watching this page; it has become embroiled in stupid, unnecessary argument. Motorrad-67 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's arguing? I'm most certainly not. Motorrad-67 appears to think that discussion is obligatory and that as he's added the links that have been deleted that it in some way gives him authority to say yay or nay. As regards the 3RR rule, he's already breached that. I have actually held off from deleting the remaining (original) list entries that consist of external links as they are more likely to be notable (due to their international status) regardless of them being externally linked. It isn't my intention to decimate this list, and just to prevent future allegations of bias, I'll declare (not for the first time on WP), that I am actually an atheist so there is no religious motive in my doing what I've done. Wikipedia guidelines and standards is though. ---- WebHamster 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox for discussion of notability

I agree completely about the edit warring. Unfortunately, it's harder to discuss whether most of these are notable or not without a handy list of the original groups. To that end, I've duplicated an archived version in my user space. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deciding whether a particular organization is notable

OK, so far I've heard two related criteria for whether an organization is notable.

1. It has its own article. This is almost automatic. Any deletion of an organization that does have its own article definitely needs to be discussed. Of course, no one is talking about deleting such organizations (or actually doing so). On the other hand, creating articles for deleted organizations after the fact might lead some to cry foul.
2. It is discussed by reliable sources. Many of the deleted organizations meet this criteria. If we supply references to reliable sources, will that be sufficient grounds for inclusion?

Finally, I do want to acknowledge that as the article reads now it is more balanced than the heavily US-centric version in my sandbox. However, that can also be fixed by adding more notable organizations from other countries. It might make sense to split out the US organizations into their own sublist, and possibly even the California ones from there. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As far as notability is concerned for list inclusion the list should meet the wikipedia standards for notability (just as any other article has to), so yes, if the organisation meets WP:ORG and it can be sourced/cited per WP:RS then it's in, regardless of its location. The weighting issues, though a minor problem, could be easily sorted as you suggested. Wither way it's just a matter of formatting. Later down the line other large country will no doubt contain more entries too. ---- WebHamster 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what's the proper way of including this information? Here's an RS for Alabama Atheists (probably the first time I've called Fox News a reliable source, but if you don't like that one, there are others), but it doesn't seem to make sense to put that foot note on Alabama Atheists as its not about its existence but about it "[alleging] unfair treatment". How do we document this? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An inline citation is the normal way of introducing a source, there's no reason why they can't be used in a list. Also, there's no reason why an amount of extra test/detail can't be added below a particular list entry to impart additional info.---- WebHamster 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Alabama Atheists entry in my sandbox and see if that's what you have in mind. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, exactly like that, although I did take the liberty of editing the formatting slightly to leave the list entry clear and to have the additional text below the list entry. It's purely subjective and a suggestion though. ---- WebHamster 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into expanding it more tomorrow when I have some time. When I'm satisfied with the sandbox (and all are welcome to contribute), I'll create a sublist for the US and update the main list accordingly. My intention is to duplicate the national groups in both lists, but to have the local groups in the US list only. Does that seem right? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also found one for Tuscon Atheists. As you can see, I'm going down the deleted list in order. I expect that I'll be able to find reliable sources for about 95% of these, so do consider that. The separate list solution will help reduce the number of references, but I still expect it will be quite large when all is said and done. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll lower that WAG from 95% to 75% as I struck out with the Phoenix Atheist Group. I'll stop searching for now as I'd like some acknowledgment that this research isn't in vain. (I realize that many of y'all might have signed off for the night.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote policy at WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So notability is not established by the fact that an org has a web presence, since that is self-published (not independent). Also, significant coverage is necessary. That means more than a blurb, and more than coverage in something like a campus newspaper. The latter type of coverage is also not entirely independent of the campus group. Local groups might be notable enough for their own article and inclusion in this list, but probably only if they've made a big enough "bang" to have received more than local coverage, or coverage by publications of like-minded groups.

I think the best approach would not be to go through the campus groups alphabetically, but to start by identifying one campus group that is believed to be the most notable, write up an article about it using reliable sources, then see if the wider editing community deems such a group notable enough for its own article. Then proceed to a group that is estimated to be the second most notable, and so forth. I'd wager that only a few, at most, of the campus groups formerly listed would be deemed notable enough to survive an AfD nomination.

On another note: Organizations such as the Godless Americans PAC, which are dependent on a controlling parent organization such as American Atheists, are often not notable enough for their own article, though they can be covered in the article of the parent organization. Additionally, if there is not enough information from reliable sources to make more than a stub for a dependent org, the information is usually merged into the article of the parent org. GAMPAC probably shouldn't have its own entry on the list yet, but it would be helpful to mention it in the entry for AA. By the same token, every entry should have a brief description of the group listed, to make this list more useful. Nick Graves 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not doing campus groups specifically, but all local groups within the US currently (i.e., those targeted for deletion). Do you disagree that the first two I identified as being notable are notable? (I'll assume that you agree with the one I identified as being non-notable, or rather that you're assuming I'm right on that matter.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything I said about local campus groups applies just as well to other local groups. I took a look at your sources for Alabama Atheists. I don't think they are enough to establish notability. The UPI story (I found a full version here) only mentions the organization in a single sentence. That's not signficant coverage. The Fox story isn't even about Alabama Atheists (the organization), but about Alabama atheists (people), specifically those involved with the Atheist Law Center. I think maybe the title misled you as to the subject matter.

The article about the Tucson group is local coverage, not national, so it doesn't fulfill the significant coverage requirement. Also, it's only a single source. Coverage from multiple sources is required. Furthermore, the text of the article even calls the group "a small band of atheists," which supports the presumption of non-notability for this group.

The best test of notability would be to create an article for one of these local groups using as many good sources as you can find, and then see how it fares under scrutiny from the wider community. Nick Graves 17:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Could you share with me that other UPI source (and tell me how you found it)? I wasn't very pleased with the one I found.
2. The Ten Commandment fight was quite significant, so I think that adds to the notability of the group involved.
3. You're right about the Fox News story. I misread that one. What's confusing is that Larry Darby is also affiliated with the Alabama Atheists. Of course, further research might indicate that these two groups (Alabama Atheists and the Atheist Law Center) are affiliated with each other. (Yes, I know, WP:SYN and all that.)
4. Here is a more recent story about the Alabama Atheists. I double checked to make sure the capitalization remained in the story itself. :)
5. With regards to the Tucson group, WP:N's mention of significant coverage seems to say that the source significantly covers the item in question, and does not address local/national coverage, as far as I can tell. From the guideline: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."
6. I do appreciate the effort you're putting into this, and I hope you don't find me too combative. Other than perhaps where we fall on the inclusionist/deletionist scale, I suspect we're mostly in agreement on things. :)

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ben Hocking (without indents, which were getting excessively large):

1. You may find a full version of the UPI story here. I found it by Googling the title of the article within quotation marks, and selecting the first mirror of the article that did not require me to sign up for some goofy trial subscription.
2. The Ten Commandments fight was signficant, but it only adds to the WP notability of a group involved in it insofar as their involvement leads to the group receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. A single sentence is not significant coverage.
3. I don't think that what you suggest would run afoul of WP:SYN. If you find reliable sources that show a close affiliation between the groups (ie. The one is actually a project of or controlled by the other), then I believe coverage of one could count as additional support for the notability of the other.
4. The Newswire Services article gives more significant coverage than what you found earlier, but it is a judgment call as to whether it is significant enough. The story isn't very long, and doesn't go into any depth about the group itself, focusing rather on one complaint. However, according to WP:ORG, "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." So, according to policy (with which I happen to disagree, but that's beside the point), you could include information about Alabama Atheists in the list (with the sources), even if it's not notable enough for its own article. Actually that's only if it's a chapter of a national organization like American Atheists. I believe AA did away with its chapter program many years ago. I'm not sure how "affiliates" fit in the picture, though I can say from my experience with CFIOC and SSA that it doesn't take much to be an affiliate, and the umbrella groups do not exert control over the affiliate groups.
5. You're right about significant coverage not being specifically defined according to local/national coverage in the policy. That is my own interpretation, based on the fact that the signficance of coverage is inextricably tied to the significance of the publication that includes it. Coverage in a small-town paper is inherently less signficant than coverage in a major newspaper in a large city, which is less significant than national coverage, or international coverage. However, even if you disagree with this interpretation, the policy does specify that a topic is only presumed to be notable if the listed criteria are met--that is, they are necessary conditions for notability, but not always sufficent conditions. In the footnote for that section, it says that "minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination" may not be sufficient to establish notability. A story only covered by local press is more likely to be a minor news story, and local sources are more apt to be less discriminating about the events, people or organizations they cover. For example, my grandmother's hometown paper might go into depth about a prize-winning bull at the county fair, but the depth of coverage in this case doesn't necessarily count towards the bull's notability for Wikipedia purposes (this is an extreme example to illustrate a point--I don't mean to imply that Alabama Atheists is no more notable in general than this bull).
6. My main concern here has been to make sure that this list is in full compliance with policy, to avoid nomination for deletion. I've recently been involved in trying to save two list articles from deletion (one successful, one not), and I know how eager some editors can be to delete articles, especially list articles. I know you want your work to be preserved, but remember that all of your previous work is saved in the article history, and can easily be restored if sufficent sources are found for inclusion. Nick Graves 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What about France?

Why isn't there also a list of secular organizations of France? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.231.162 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

European Humanist Federation covers them. 50.129.61.85 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to look for Template: European Humanist Federation. 50.129.61.85 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

List Purge

Who authorized Iron Gargoyle to purge the list of all references that weren't article links? I don't see any of his comments here! 50.129.61.85 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Openly Secular

I suggeste the organization "Openly Secular" be added to this list. See: http://www.openlysecular.org/

"The mission of Openly Secular is to eliminate discrimination and increase acceptance by getting secular people - including atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, humanists and nonreligious people - to be open about their beliefs."

Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of secularist organizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416200747/http://www.secular.org/constituency.html to http://www.secular.org/constituency.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.humanism.be/in/ehf/cont_1.htm?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705042836/http://www.iheu.org/node/1531 to http://www.iheu.org/node/1531
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412035057/http://www.human.no/templates/Page____2067.aspx to http://www.human.no/templates/Page____2067.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030044732/http://www.human.no/templates/Page____2076.aspx to http://www.human.no/templates/Page____2076.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move

This article name reflects an American NPOV. Only in the US, and relatively recently (and by the religious right, btw) did the term secularism been strongly associated with a meaning which actually befits irreligion. For references, cf. Berlinerblau, How to be Secular. The primary and conventional meaning of "secularism" is separation of church and state, and promoting a secular (not nonreligious) society. The list here refers to nonreligious/irreligious organizations. To avoid confusion, the article should be renamed accordingly. There is a great drive in academia to be very specific about these terms. AddMore-III (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)