Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

User:Mann jess' removal of references

User:Mann jess has unilaterally proceeded in removing even more references from the article today. In his edit summaries, he stated "Refs do not back up assertion that he was the first militant atheist." While this is true, those references still support the assertion that Charles Bradlaugh was a militant atheist. This is a contentious assertion to make in the first place and reliable sources ensure that the statement is not contestable. I request that they be reinstated. In another edit, User:Mann jess, stated" ref isn't direct about label, or clear about its indended usage." However, the reference states:

Madame Blavatsky, a Russian, suspected of being a sypy, converted Anglo-Indians to a passioante belief in her Theosophy mission, even when the Jingo fever was the hottist, and in her declining years she succeeded in winning over to the new-old religion Annie Besant, who had for years fought in the forefront of the van of militant atheism.

. In light of these facts, I request that he please reinstate this reference and revert his edits. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding the motion. Would this be an appropriate place to discuss some of the other unilateral edits made without discussion? Turnsalso (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest each edit get its own section. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's a wholesale revert, which includes inappropriately removing the NPOV tag for an ongoing RfC regarding neutrality, inappropriately reintroducing "atheist fundamentalist" despite large consensus in 2 sections above to the contrary, reintroducing duplicate and improper content into the article, and so forth. I don't know exactly what else to do at this point, but this is getting absurd.   — Jess· Δ 17:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The removal of "atheist fundamentalist" is opposed by User:Anupam, User:Lionelt, User:lovemonkey, and myself. It appears the concensus may be in favor of maintaining it. Turnsalso (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest checking the section again. Anipam is the only one who weighed in to oppose. I take it you're Turnsalso, ip?   — Jess· Δ 18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMilitant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439394843&oldid=439392851 Looks like Lionelt at least also opposed; I'd suggest checking the section again as well. Turnsalso (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a different discussion regarding a different issue.   — Jess· Δ 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the entire group of edits have been reverted again, and no attempt as of yet has been made to discuss any reasons for that reversion. Turnsalso, you're the one who reverted. Please either post why you disagree with each of the edits you reverted (including why you feel that consensus formed in Dumping quotes and Atheist fundamentalism is not sufficient for the removal of the term), or please reinstate those edits. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ 19:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I support User:Turnalso's reverts. There is absolutely no reason for you to remove a large amount of information and references from the article. User:Lionelt, User:Turnsalso, and I all stated that we opposed your edits including the removal of atheist fundamentalism, the BioLogos statement and reference, as well as the mass amount of references you removed from the Soviet Bloc section and Politics section. You have been bold and have removed this information and you have been reverted. Please do explain why you did this and collaborate with the other editors here rather than unilaterally making huge undiscussed alterations to the article. I personally did not revert you and attempted to start this discussion here but you have not replied to your reasons for removing such a large amount of information. Moreover, other editors clearly oppose your actions. Moreover, User:Turnsalso explained why he reverted you in two places: 1 and 2. As such, perhaps you should acknowledge the fact that there is no consensus, which you claim, to remove atheist fundamentalism, BioLogos, or the references. This points to the fact that the version of the article before your mass deletions should be in place right now. Please undo your other deletions as well. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not aware of Lionel opposing removal of "atheist fundamentalist" terminology, and he didn't participate in the two discussions where consensus formed 2 weeks ago. That leaves you and Turnsalso (who also didn't participate) opposing established consensus on the matter. As far as Turnsalso explaining his revert, I see him 1) opposing removal of the CNN ref, 2) opposing removal of the biologos cite, 3) asking for discussion. Taking them in order... (1) was not part of the edit he reverted. (2) could have been undone individually, and does not address the rest of the content. (3) there is no requirement to discuss changes before making them. If he wants to discuss the edits, he's welcome to do so. As I noted above, he has not. Therefore, as it stands, he has reverted a good deal of content without providing any reason. I'm welcoming him to either provide a reason, or to reintroduce the content.   — Jess· Δ 20:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he stated that he seconded the statement that your mass deletion of references was not in order as well. Moreover, User:JimWae enacted a compromise between myself and him on the issue which was accepted as de-facto; your version, therefore, is not the compromise version but is a unilateral edit. Please carefully re-read the discussions. Hopefully, User:Lionelt and User:Turnsalso will comment and clarify this. Also he opposed the removal of the BioLogos citation, which I also opposed and explained above. As such, there is no need to remove it since you're apparently the only one who wants to see it gone. Moreover, you have yet to explain why you went through and deleted all of the references regarding Bradlaugh and Besant. I started the discussion in order to point out that that was incorrect to do so. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Turnsalso reverted my edits because they were "undiscussed", both in his edit summary and the diff you quoted above. He then made no effort to actually discuss those edits. I'm asking him to discuss them, a fairly reasonable request, and you keep chiming in to argue with me. This conversation is going nowhere productive. Also, please stop calling JimWae's edit a compromise. It is very clearly not.   — Jess· Δ 20:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is a partial reason he reverted them. He also stated that he was "seeing lack of concensus for removal." I will continue to call that edit a compromise, because that's what it was. And since you're not going to try to discuss your removal of references with me, I'm going to assume that you agree with my assessment. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to add my voice to m.o.p.'s that Jess your large-scale editing is not helpful. That makes at least 4 editors who have criticized your editing. I recommend that you attempt to persuade us that your ideas for the article are an improvement. – Lionel (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Umm... what? m.o.p said nothing of large-scale editing. He talked below of reverting without discussion, and I'm fairly certain he wasn't referring to me. If I'm mistaken, I'd welcome him to clarify. However, the only reverts I made left out every bit of contested material, only reintroducing unobjectionable material that Anupam said he wasn't able to separate from the objectionable parts. All of my edits have continually been reverted, continually for reasons like "unexplained edits" or "not discussed", after I made every effort to separate each edit and meticulously explain reasons in edit summaries.

Since being reverted, every time, I opened discussion on the talk page, and since this last reversion, I've specifically left the material out of the article and asked... begged... the editor who reverted me to actually give me any reason for wholesale reverting 25+ edits, which he still hasn't done. For someone who so desperately wanted my edits discussed, that behavior seems odd, and I can't fathom any way to make myself more available to discussion than spending the entire day on the talk page asking him for input.

4 editors criticizing me? I don't know how to respond to that... #1 has opposed every single change to the article which has aimed for neutrality, and expressed grounds for opposition that he feels ownership over the content he added previously. #2 is a brand new editor... no idea where he came from, but his ability to judge wikiediquette hasn't exactly been established. #3 hasn't said anything to me, ever. #4 is you.

If you're really, legitimately concerned about my editing style, you should know that I whole heartedly welcome constructive feedback (as publically evidenced by the times I've received it on my talk page), and if an uninvolved editor (or even one who doesn't simply disagree with me on a content dispute) swings by to tell me I'm editing improperly, I'll take that to heart. But as it stands now, all this "jump on Jess" attitude is simply out of place and tiring. Can we please move on to discussing the actual edits, and stop this middle-school bickering? Seriously, this whole thing is absurd.   — Jess· Δ 02:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Mann jess, in order to avoid confusion between the references that support Charles Bradlaugh being a militant atheist and the references that support him being the "first militant atheist in the history of Western civilization," I have reworded the sentence so it contains two separate clauses and used the appropriate references for each statement. Both of these clauses are now verifiable by the appropriate reliable sources. I hope this is satisfactory to you as well. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Late on the arrival, but... 1. In the lede: The references I restored covered the usage of the term in one of its common appearances and was legitimately restored. The use of "atheist fundamentalism" I may be willing to compromise on, but not the removal of the paragraph itself. 2. Under "Soviet Bloc": "Militant atheism was effectively the state religion of the Soviet Union" may be better served by adding "Harold Joseph Berman says" or something like that, but your edit removed all mention of persecution of Christians in the USSR, leaving the link under "further reading" immediately above, which you maintained, rather out in the cold and looking like an appropriate place to trim for WP:SYNTH. 3. "Politics"/"History": I saw no reason that this text should be removed. 4. "New Atheism": Again, I am willing to concede "atheist fundamentalist" need not be included in this article and the Ian Hutchinson quote is in discussion already. However, what of the rest of the references in this section, or the criticism section? Has concensus been reached about all those that I've missed? Please show me where. Turnsalso (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your objections. You said you "legitimately restored" references to "atheist fundamentalism", then you said you're willing to compromise on it being removed, then you said that you aren't willing to compromise on the paragraph staying. Later, you say "atheist fundamentalist need not be included in the article". What? Even bypassing that confusion, most of your objections address content I didn't remove. I did not remove any paragraph in the lead, nor did I remove "all mention of persecution of Christians in the USSR". Please check my edits again: Here's the diff of your revert. Above, it was suggested you make a section for each edit you contested. Please do that, so I'm clear on what you're objecting to and why.   — Jess· Δ 19:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just as a small clarification, I was not singling out any individual user - judgment is applied equally on all fronts. Simply put: don't make large-scale changes without consensus, don't revert others without good, unbiased reason (vandalism, BLP violations, etc). m.o.p 20:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
@All, It's been days, and I still have not seen any reasonable objections to the bulk of my edits, and instead of discussion, I'm seeing movement on the article. As such, I'm going to very carefully introduce those edits which haven't received criticism (or are supported by consensus) into the article one by one. I may also make a few novel changes in the process, also in individual edits with clear edit summaries (like I did the first time). If anyone has an objection to an edit I've made, please post a clear objection to it on the talk page, and if you revert, do it individually. This behavior of reverting wholesale without discussion for ambiguous reasons is unconstructive. @Turnsalso, for the time being, I'm leaving out the edits I'm guessing you object to (though I'm only guessing, since your reply to me yesterday was unclear). Please still go through my edits you've reverted and give me clear reasons why you object to each, so that we can have a proper discussion. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ 01:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Before doing so, I would like to discuss with you the edits which you would like to make. If they include the removal of references as I detailed above, I object to them. Please point to edit summaries that delineate exactly which edits you would like to make. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in: I appreciate everyone's steps forward. The situation seems to be taking a turn for the positive; let's keep the discussion and consensus going. Good job, guys. m.o.p 01:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Turnsalso I see you've contributed again to the page, but have still not come back to give any solid reasons for your revert days ago. Can I take this to mean that you no longer oppose the content in my edits? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Epistle of hope

Oh dear. So much impulse to denounce and so little rationality.

Let’s start with Marxism Leninism. It is an ideology based every bit as much on faith as any religion. If it demands that all the faithful attack God, then that’s what they’ll do. That does not make it atheist. Atheism requires an individual to make a value judgement about a proposition. Marxism Leninism demands only obedience without thought. In that way it is pretty similar to a fundamentalist Christian or Islamic religion.

Now let’s move on to this article. The introductory paragraph should summarise the body of the article, not attempt to define something never mentioned again, nor should it try to read the mind of every conspiracy theorist on the planet.

If you guys are happy to traduce the topic into some cheap evangelist rhetoric, fine. But don’t then attempt to sell this horseshit as toffee apples. Call it what it is. At the moment it is little more than an attack on various derivatives of Marxism Leninism.

In five days I will return with my word razor to excise from this article every assertion that isn’t backed by a credible citation. Then I will look up all the remaining references to cull the ones that don’t say what they are made to say here. You have until then to ensure your favourite denunciation actually holds water.

In the meantime, why don’t you denounce each other some more the way Nathaniel Hawthorne always knew you would.

Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try to work constructively on this article but I suggest that you look at the "controversial" tag at the top of this page and reflect on it. You are welcome to your opinions. I tend to disagree with your assessment and would argue that militant atheism can manifest itself in many forms. Regardless, if you wish to make any major changes to the article, they should first be discussed. This will prevent edit warring here, which is discouraged. Any reference in this article as it stands is supported with a full length quote from the original source in order to ensure venerability. As for the introduction, it seems that your version is being discussed as we speak. I think we should allow more users to comment there and then make a decision about it. I will add my comments there in the near future. Also, your assertion that this is somehow an attack article was submitted and swiftly declined by an administrator. I would encourage you to assume good faith about others' edits and adapt a collaborative spirit. Thanks for your understanding! With warm regards, AnupamTalk 21:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Peter, don't forget extra blades :) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would definitely not recommend excising everything you don't see fit. I can guarantee you'll anger every other editor. This topic is already contested on multiple fronts - reformatting it as a one-man-army will only make things worse. I understand that we have policies such as WP:BOLD, but those aren't free leave to swoop down into the middle of a disputed page and have your way with it. If anything, participate in the discussions above or propose a draft of the page written in your userspace (for example, User:Peterstrempel/Milath). Your cooperation is much-appreciated. m.o.p 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion of a disagreement between mop and myself about this issue on my talk page which I think is only fair to draw to the attention of interested/concerned parties. I am still resolved to excise from the militant atheism article all unverified assertions, and to start on that endeavour tomorrow. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Peter you appear to be harboring a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is unwarranted. We are all here to improve the article. Note that I oppose your brand of unilateral editing. I recommend that you discuss your changes with us before you make substantial edits, as requested by Anupam, mop and now myself. – Lionel (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I refer you all to Mojoworker's comments on my talk page (about the same issue in relation to another discussion), specifically the elegant way he illustrated the point that there is no avoiding the meaning of WP:Verifiability as a 'policy' or the meaning of WP:CONLIMITED

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Ergo, this limited community of editors cannot decide to overrule a wider Wikipedia policy that Encylopaedic content must be verifiable, or that discussion of the article should not not include general discussion of the topic (as in discussing unverified content). If anyone here wants to challenge Wikipedia policies as they stand, pick the appropriate forum, which is not here.

Regards. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued reversion without discussion

I'm seeing a lot of reversion without discussion here - please note that, if you disagree with an addition, communicate your disapproval. Reverting solves nothing. If this continues, I'll be protecting the page until some sort of compromise/agreement has been made. m.o.p 23:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, this is not free leave for people to rush the article and try to change as much as possible before it's locked, nor is it an invitation to disregard other opinions. I still expect people to attempt to find a consensus. Just stop reverting each other. m.o.p 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if you were including me — but I did revert a change. I did so because the cited work was a novel. From its description at Amazon: "The New Atheist Novel is the first study of a major new genre of contemporary fiction". Certainly that isn't a WP:RS — seems pretty clear–cut so I don't know if that sort of thing needs to be discussed first… Mojoworker (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Additions that are blatantly against policy - as in, citations from Amazon pages being used to information - can be removed, yes. m.o.p 14:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Mojoworker and User:Master of Puppets, the citation was not from an Amazon page but was from a book which discussed concepts integral to the New Atheism movement. Perhaps you could look and see if you feel it is appropriate? Please click here to see my edit and the source + quotation that I used. I would appreciate it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: The reference I removed was indeed a reference to the actual book, not Amazon, and I didn't intend to imply otherwise. However the book cited is a novel and is a fictional work. I just looked and I didn't see anything in WP:RS that explicitly addresses citing works of fiction, but it seems intuitively obvious that fiction wouldn't be a reliable source. But hey, I've been wrong before… Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify in case anybody is unsure - the article is still under observation and is still regarded as disputed. Though we've calmed down a bit over the last few days, let's keep discussing changes here until we can arrive at a suitable compromise. Keep up the good work! m.o.p 10:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a page notice to the main body of the article with the intent of stopping reversions. In case anybody is curious; I haven't locked the page down completely because edit-warring has (mostly) stopped and discussion is going strong. I'm also confident in the ability of grown men and women to compromise and discuss without reducing themselves to a bickering mess. Keep it up, m.o.p 00:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Word Razor

My application of the word razor can be seen at this subpage.

Please do not edit that page or start a discussion there. Keep it here so all can see and assess. I propose to make the changes detailed on that page in seven days. Strikethroughs will be removed if credible citations are found, but should be removed only after discussion here. Changes made to the subpage without discussion or agrement here will be reverted by me. If an admin is watching, perhaps you can lock editing of that subpage for the time being.

While I have not proposed cuts to the introductory paragraphs, I think they will need to be completely re-written to move arguments made only there into the main body of the article (in line with WP policy), and to include wording that reflects the generally critical slant of the article, and the heavy emphasis on evidencing criticism of militant atheism with a history of Soviet-style Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. But that's a debate to be conducted when the cuts are made.

My explanatory notes are set out below. It took me a great deal of time to sift through all references, so I'd appreciate comments that refrain from re-arguing controversies instead of focusing only on Wikipedia referencing policy.

Soviet bloc

'Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules.[30][37]' is an inappropriate attribution to the sentence preceding it. The cited references for severe punishment do not refer to indoctrinating schoolchildren or university students, and that conclusion is presented here as made by Wikipedia, which is inappropriate.

'By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries.[38]' The cited source does not support the stricken assertion, which is in fact a link to an unassessed Wikipedia article criticised for being excessively based on a single source.

'several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction'. The word extinction is never mentioned in the cited references. Use destruction or eradication instead, which are mentioned. Have added my suggestion of destruction in square brackets.

'no more than three to four hundred clerical positions left.[41]' The stricken wording is not supported by the source, which talks about clergy, not clerical positions.

'(and forced re-education through torture at various prisons).[46][47][48][49]' While the claim that torture and re-education in various prisons may be true, the sources do not refer to it as linked specifically to religion. Moreover, source 48 is not a credible source, disavowed even by the university server it is hosted on as personal opinion, and not clearly attributed to an author. Also, the clumsy concatenation of that source to a separate one is about human rights in general being violated, not specific to torture and brainwashing of Christians. Finally, that source is subject to link rot, being a personal page that may disdappear without notice.

'along with the Tatar Union of the Militant Godless,[58]' The cited source does not support any association of the TUMG with the League of Militant Atheists, or collaborative 'anti-religious propaganda at the grassroots level'. Nor do sources 59 through 61.

'In 1941, soon after the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the newspaper closed, and in 1947 the society itself folded, the task of the anti-religious propaganda being transferred to the more neutrally named All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge (?????????? ???????? ?? ??????????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ??????).[62]' The issue of encyclopaedias being cited as a Wikipedia source is complex and could be interpreted to mean they should not be used to evidence controversial assertions (see Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Encyclopedias, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#non_Wikipedia_Dictionaries_and_Encyclopedias. However, I prefer to leave that issue aside as a separate debate, and have not stricken previous encyclopaedic references. This passage is an exception because of the difficulty verifying the credibility and accuracy of an unattributed translation of an unusual source.

'The society in its turn was in 1963 renamed to simply Obshchestvo "Znanie" (???????? "??????", The All-Union Knowledge Society).[64]' Faces the same problem as the previous citation.

'Since 1959 the society has published a monthly journal called Nauka i Religya (Science and Religion) which, during the Soviet era, described itself as "a fighting organ of militant atheism", rejecting the view that religion would disappear of itself.' This passge appears not be sourced from anywhere. However, the quoted reference [65] implies that it may be able to be used as a source for similar assertions. I would be indebted to the editor who intrduced this source to extend the quote given if that is the case. That would make more sense than leaving an orphaned mention at the end of the paragraph.

'In general, scientists and party philosophers in the Soviet Union worked to establish a view of science acceptable to Marxist-Leninist philosophy.[66]' This assertion is not backed by the cited passage.

'himself a leader in the Atheist 3.0 movement' Says who? The link to atheism 3.0 is a link to an article considered for deletion. Reference 69 does not refer to Sheiman as a leader of Atheism 3.0, and there is no cited evidence for the existence of such a group or its leadership.

French Revolution

'who both advocated the dechristianisation of France.[9]' The cited reference does not support the asserted target for dechritianisation.

New Atheism

The heading of this section to be removed because there is no credible reference presented to evidence the existence of a new atheism movement, with all citations referring to authors as militant atheists, ergo, the previous section 'Today' should just continue.

'The term militant atheist, has been used to criticize the New Atheism movement. What is the source for this assertion? A link to another enclyclopaedia article is subject to linkrot if that article changes, and not a credible reference for a controversial assertion that application of a media-speak label to authors and books refers to a tangible thing such as a movement. Cite evidence for membership, leaders, policies and activities.

'Michael Ruse,[121][122] and Bruce Sheiman , a leader[citation needed] in the Atheism 3.0 movement[citation needed], who stated that ...' Ruse is not a coauthor of the statements attributed to him and Sheiman, of which Sheiman is the sole author, and no reference exists to label Sheiman a leader of anything.

'Other articles in the popular media make reference to the leaders representing the New Atheism movement as militant atheists.[125][126][127]' The articles cited do not refer to New Atheism or its supposed leaders at all. No other reference is given to support a claim that any authors are leaders of any movement called New Atheism.

This entire section formerly called New Atheism is top heavy with quotes from Fiala, and the main arguments that are supported by references could be significantly summarised (shortened) to eliminate the undue suggestion there is something new or different about Fiala and co's critique of militant atheism compared to preceding criticisms.

Media

This entire section could easily be rolled into the previous one and significantly shortened because the arguments are repetitive, with the exception of Dawkins' rebuttal. I won't strike it here, but I suspect there's a good case for NPOV violation by way of loading this article with criticism of militant atheism and giving too little prominence to rebuttals.

Criticism

Ditto. Where has this article so far not been critical of militant atheism?

END OF NOTES

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Peterstrempel, thanks for checking the article to see if the content met WP:V and WP:RS. This will be the crucial step of ending the current dispute on the talk page. I really appreciate your efforts in reviewing the article. I agree with many of your corrections in your revision and for the ones I do not, in the near future, I will be posting comments on those. Thanks again, AnupamTalk 21:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Peterstrempel, I would like to take your editorial suggestions one by one. In your first statement, you suggested that the sentence 'Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules' be excised from the article. I understand your reasoning. However, rather than simply removing the statement, let us consider moving it so that it is satisfactory. I suggest moving it after the sentence 'Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services' where it fits appropriately. What do you think? I look forward to your comments. Thanks again for taking the time to make the revisions. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph issues

The second paragraph launches a diatribe. Karl Marx hardly ever said one word about religion. He said it is the "opiate of the people but also the heart of a heartless world. " Marx - ists - that is another story. The article should IMHO make this distinction. Dawkins says that there is a myth that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. It was Aveling, not Marx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletions?

How about getting rid of the entire "see also" section. It is either OR or subtle POV. People can integrate their concerns into the text if they feel a link is relevant. Otherwise, we will have to fight over each link and then make sure it is balanced out. The link to the Russian S.o.G. an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party.[1] - that is pure OR consistent with the criticism of Militant Atheism, advancing the agenda of the critics of militant atheism; the link to the atheism portal is not OR but it is POV so I will say also we should link to the religion portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition?

[1]  Done No objections, nor should there be any. This apt quote fits right in with the flow and merely expands the section without much "tilt". Feel free to add other quotes which are on point. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this "small" revert is...

[2] if it is the case that most of the cited "critics" are "not believers", the way this section and many other sections of the article read, it gives the impression that certain authors, particularly Foote, were vociferous critics of this Spectre Haunting Europe, "Militant Atheism", and that they used the term in a routine manner to debunk this menacing, monolithic entity ("Militant Atheism"). Thus, my colleague tacitly concurs. Thus, there is a problem with the sentence as is, but, since I can't think up a CLEARLY NPOV, NOT-TERRIBLY-CONTROVERSIAL FIX, I will hold back and wait for a concensus unless inspiration strikes. Thanks to ALL of the editors who see and tacitly acknowledge that my minor little tweaks were all fine and good, I appreciate that. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Philosphically speaking" Bad grammar

So - is this or is this not a quote? If so, this section is obsolete and perhaps can be manually archived? If not please remove the word "speaking". [3] If it is a quote then it was removed in error. As you say, a "small" tweak to an otherwise acceptable body of editing. Even the user who threatened a personal investigation of the editor had no quarrel with the edits, so hopefully the divisiveness will pass and we can proceed with improving this article with at the least an attempt at conducting ourselves as professional intelligentisa. I will check this edit and if as you state it was a quote, please accept my apology for a good faith error. If, on the other hand, it is not a quote, then it is a simple matter of a grammatical correction. Thanks for pointing that out.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's allot of apologizing don't you think. Looks to me like you need to practice what you preach and take a break from the article as your making allot of mistakes which is effecting the collaboration here. Your making allot of mistakes in the article and here on the talk page and it is one thing to be misunderstood, it is a complete other to make threats, personal attacks and accuse people of bad faith (like I have pointed out). You like to apologize and then in the same breath go back to committing policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit #441259171

This is not the place to request an SPI, and accusing others of sockpuppeting on an article talk page is bordering on WP:PA. If you have concerns, take them to the appropriate place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[[4]]

I am grateful that my esteemed colleague is now finally discussing the edits rather than this person.

Regarding this edit, the edit comment was perhaps a bit frisky, and if it is found to be offensive I of course gladly apologize for causing offense. But it is not a basis for a sock investigation, see section below. Nor is it cause for a warning, a temporary block, a topic block, nor is it a violation of policy. It is simply something that LoveMonkey found to be an overstatement and perhaps offense and like two adults we can work this out without threats of administrative action. (The topic of whether calling a personal attack a personal attack is a personal attack will not be addressed at the moment, if ever, because of its obvious circularity.)

What was being understood to be false was the assertion about Marxist-Leninism, which is clearly not factual. The purpose of the edit, and what sparked the admittedly perhaps overly harsh term "rubbish" was the way the article was written which suggested that the assertion was a Truth, rather than the opinion of [[whomever].

If you are an experienced editor and a thinking Christian, as per your userpage, I expect you to support, entirely, my edit, and have no reason to think that you do not. In fact, you did not revert the edit, you did not contest the edit in any way, so we are in agreement as things stand that it was a good and proper edit. So if my edit comment was a bit harsh, I accept that criticism cheerfully. You are right, "POV rubbish" is a tad bit too sharp a criticism. But we agree that the edit was a good edit.

The only reason i was so impatient in the first place was because so much of the article text is downright deceptive. I did not allege at that time nor do I allege now taht it is deliberate or not in good faith. To the contrary, I appreciate the excellent foot noteing.


Now, I will address the rest of your concerns as they may seem to be appropriate however I am suggesting a VOLUNTARY MUTUAL MORATORIUM for a cooling off period of unspecified duration. The below post was written previously and is legalistic and best ignored except by adminsDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would note to the admins that you just apologized and then withdrew your apology. You just said it was wrong to make the comment in the edit summary that you made but it was wrong for me to point that out because the "edit" was good. Now that's being deceptive. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Threat of checkuser Inquisition investigation is not warranted
No valid basis for a check: Wikipedia policies and guidelines

"While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden."

=Breakout=
  • to deceive other editors
  • disrupt discussions
  • distort consensus
  • or otherwise violate community standards

There is no allegation of any of these.

Nor did they occur. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

== China: Please shorten this sentence if possible ==

"The People's Republic of China is often characterized as an atheist state,[82][83] as atheism is officially endorsed by the ruling Chinese Communist Party.[12]"

Proposed: Atheism is officially endorsed by the ruling Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China.

(If and only if that is cited by reliable secondary.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Request withdrawn.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

'But you use that word but allot, it appears your trying to justify your disruptive edits and behavior here. Trying to claim your misunderstood and then trying to justify. And you think you can defer accountability by claiming you where joking or your misunderstood. Looks to me like your well acquainted with Wikipedia and not a new contributor. It appears to me that you should not be putting requisites in your apologies. As I say you've broken all of the above mentioned list of criteria, you did that when you threatened me. No apology is valid when you blame the person you've threatened after you've been called to task. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus-in-principal on structural revision

(I am maintaining a moratorium on argument and self-defens(ive) discussion of certain criticisms with a particular editor about past events not neccessarily a moratorium on minor, non-controversial edits which do not substantially modify the article)

PROPOSED: That we reach consensus that

  • the title of the article is Militant atheism and that the article should be about the topic of "militant athiesm" if we agree that such a thing exists in reliable secondary sources.
  • the text of the article is at present predominantly about critique of "militant atheism" as allegedly practiced by Russian Communism and others
    • a subsection or subsections discuss criticism of "militant atheism", generally and thematically rather than as practiced in specific geographies.
  • Both the text of the article and the subsection(s) therefore do not constitute an article which describes an object, "militant atheism", but rather, describes Criticism of militant atheism in practice.

PROOF: There is no handbook of principles and practices of Militant Atheism. Karl Marx did not use the term. Dawkins used it as a joke. Foote used it as sarcasm.

For now, i just want to put this thought out. Later we can brainstorm remedies. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Source that these comments where done in jest. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In the video Dawkins on Militant atheism; Foote, if you read the footnote, no pun intended.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis

Why is this piece of blatant synthesis in the entry at all, not to mention the lead?

  • Recently the term militant atheist has been used, often pejoratively, to describe leaders of the New Atheism movement,[16] who share a belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[17][18][19]

The second half of that sentence uses three sources, none of which mention "militant atheism." What gives?Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence isn't about militant atheism though, it's about the New Atheism movement and the beliefs of its proponents. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Which is not what the article is about. It is synthesis to suggest that those who believe that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises," are called "militant atheists." This needs to be removed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But that's not what is claimed in the article. What is claimed is that the term has been used to describe leaders of New Atheism, which is true. Surely this doesn't mean that New Atheist proponents are militant atheists, but it is a fact that they have been pejoratively called militant atheists. If you want to make it clearer in the article to avoid misunderstandings, go ahead, but I don't see why it should go away completely. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That does not explain what the description of New Atheism, sourced to three sources that say nothing about the connection to "militant atheism" is doing in the lead, or in the entry at all. If you want to describe the "New Atheism" that has been called "militant atheism" then stick to the descriptions of those who label it as such and attribute them properly. Once again, this remains a WP:SYNTH violation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that I agree, and have pointed this out above.   — Jess· Δ 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User:Quispiam (Anton Nordenfur) on this issue. It is evident that the term has been used to describe leaders of the New Atheism movement. The article titled "Militant atheism, pragmatism, and the God-shaped hole" from the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion states: "Militant atheists such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens think that now is the time to finally be done talking about God." I have just added a new reference to the article from Baker Academic which uses militant atheists as an appositive for "proponents of the new atheism" as indicated by the following quote, which is listed under the heading Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism":

Eco-evangelism must also "the new atheism" being preached in the name of "nature." Science and religion, according to the proponents of the new atheism, are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins's Foundation for Reason and Science is out to debunk religion, which Dawkins calls "the God delusion." His book of the same title is a best seller, and Dawkins is not alone. Sam Harris, Daniel C. Den-nett, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens are only a handful of militant atheists who are convinced Christianity is toxic to human life.

This quote should dispel any doubts about the assertion in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Those sources support labeling Dawkins, Harris, Stenger and Hitchens as "militant atheists", but do not in any way support a connection to New Atheism, which is why it is synthesis.   — Jess· Δ 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo: The article is basically about any person or group that has been labeled with "militant atheism". Sources need only contain the appropriate words (regardless of context i.e. Lonely Planet travel guides are acceptable) and should always be quoted in the citation. Thus the opinions of the New Atheists (and by extension atheists in general i.e. Kathy Gifford), given as part of the free public discourse, can be associated with the murderous brutality of Militant atheism as practiced by totalitarian governments. This is, of course, ludicrous. Obviously, some editors don't see it that way. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Mann jess, I have bolded the relevant terms in the above quote and have added the previous sentence in order that you might see the connection. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is a non-notable Associate Professor of Evangelism a reliable source for a connection between Militant atheism and the New Atheists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtifexMayhem (talkcontribs) 23:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem, obviously many other editors --- myself included --- see it exactly that way.Jkhwiki (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Anupam: The argument is basically about any statement that has been labeled with "synthesis". Explanations need only contain the appropriate words (regardless of context i.e. "has been pejoratively applied" equals an assertion that X is Y) and should always be stated explicitly. Thus the opinions of the anti-atheists (and by extension pro-article editors in general i.e. lovemonkey), given as part of an articulated discussion, can be associated with the impenetrable nonsense of weak reasons as practiced in edit wars. This is, of course, ludicrous. Obviously, some editors don't see it that way. Turnsalso (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anupam, are you saying that just because the source uses the words "New Atheism" and "militant atheism" in the same article, that means we can label one by name of the other? The article labels Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger as militant atheists, not New Atheism. Therefore, drawing the connection we have is inappropriate. Artifex is right that a non-notable professor of evangelism is a dubious source for this content, but that's a separate issue, and shouldn't really even be a factor in light of WP:SYNTH.   — Jess· Δ 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying at all. As I mentioned earlier, the heading in which that quote fell under was called "Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism" and moreover, that quote uses the terms militant atheism and new atheism synonymously. I would request that you read the quote again so you can see this for yourself. Furthermore, the reference meets WP:RS and Elaine Heath, with her Ph.D. in Systematic Theology is qualified to speak on this issue, though you may not like to think so. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I read the passage. The terms are not being used synonymously. They are two different terms used in two different places. Nowhere are the two equated. Again, the reliability of this "Christian Outreach" book is a separate issue. The issue we're discussing is that the source doesn't back up your assertion.   — Jess· Δ 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you aren't able to recognize the synonymous usage. It's pretty evident from the source, and moreover, other editors here have also seen it as well. According to The Presence of a Hidden God (Random House Publishers):

Today there has arisen a virulent form of atheism. Militant atheists are on the march. One of them, Sam Harris, wrote a book entitled Letter to a Christian Nation, especially appealing to us to become like the failed Soviet Union. (He doesn't actually word it that way, but that's the effect of his message.) His book and a handful of other virulent anti-Christian creeds have made it onto the New York Times bestseller list.

I would like to ask you a question now. What is this "virulent form of atheism" that has "arisen" "today"? --AnupamTalk 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Since the source doesn't say, it would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for me to speculate. Do you see the problem now? What you've done is taken one source which says "militant atheism is characterized by X" and another source which says "New Atheism is characterized by x", and combined them to be "New Atheism is synonymous with militant atheism". That is nearly a word-for-word rephrasing of WP:SYNTH. Can you understand why, when you have to ask me what an author is referring to because he doesn't say explicitly, we have a problem?   — Jess· Δ 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand that and that's why I never inserted that source in the article. Both of us, however, do know the answer to that question. The source I did insert, titled "The Mystic Way of Evangelism" (Baker Academic Press) however, did equate new atheism to militant atheism as evidenced by the following quotation which was listed under the heading "Eco-evangelism and the New Atheism":

Eco-evangelism must also engage "the new atheism" being preached in the name of "nature." Science and religion, according to the proponents of the new atheism, are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins's Foundation for Reason and Science is out to debunk religion, which Dawkins calls "the God delusion." His book of the same title is a best seller, and Dawkins is not alone. Sam Harris, Daniel C. Den-nett, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens are only a handful of militant atheists who are convinced Christianity is toxic to human life.

Another reference titled "God & Government" (Zondervan) states:

But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknoledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."

Yet, even another reference makes the equivalence of the two terms. In "Religion and The State" (Infobase Publishing) the author, when reviewing an article writes:

Aronson, Ronald. "The New Atheists." The Nation 286 (6/7/07). Available online. URL: www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson. This article provides an extensive explanation and analysis of the views of today's most militant atheists in the United States and Europe. While the author is sympathetic to the free choice to choose nonbelief, or atheism, he questions the vehemance of the new atheism and wonders to what extent it has itself become a type of rigid, fundamentalist religion.

I hope this helps you understand the issue, in proper context. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, none of those equate the two terms. You are still synthesizing sources. I don't know how to explain it better than I already did. You cannot say "militant atheism is characterized by X", and then apply the label yourself to other descriptions of "X" you find. If the sources we have do not themselves call New Atheism "militant atheism", then we cannot either. Furthermore, if you understand that a source isn't sufficient to back up a claim (and therefore have purposefully left it out of the article), what makes you think it's appropriate to present here to demonstrate your claim? I'm not interested in wading through a bunch of content you already know is insufficient. Bring me one, good source which is explicit about the label and is the proper weight for us to use.   — Jess· Δ 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
After reading this discussion thread, I agree with Mann_jess that associating 'Militant atheism' with 'New Atheism' is synthesis and it's inaccurate to associate them. Abhishikt (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we have consensus here now? Abhishikt (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see synth I see a wide variety of valid sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
@Abhishikt I'd say we do. It's been over a week, and no one has addressed Griswaldo's original SYNTH concern by presenting a source which draws a connection between New Atheism and "militant atheism". I'd say this can safely be removed. I'll take care of what I can now - feel free to hop in if I miss anything.   — Jess· Δ 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I disagree with those describing the content as SYNTH. A reasonable person reading 'Eco-Evangelism, Zondervam or Aronson would conclude that MA and NA are being used synonymously. There are 4 editors who have expressed valid reasoning why they do not find SYNTH: there is no consensus to exclude. 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Lionelt's assessment. As a result, there never was a consensus to remove the information. The sources provided delineate synonymous usage of the terms "militant atheism" and "new atheism." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

LEDE written by PeaceLoveHarmony

I think the opening paragraph written by PeaceLoveHarmony, is very accurate and from NPOV. We should use it. I appreciate PeaceLoveHarmony for this.

If anyone is not satisfied with this, please state what is wrong in this and how it should be corrected? Abhishikt (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose This paragraph does not meet WP:V as there are no reliable sources that support the opinion that it is a controversial and pejorative term. The current introduction, on the other hand, is supported by several scholarly sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The current opening sentence is sourced to six references. I don't see how the proposed change to the lede is an improvement. – Lionel (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Anupam, Lionel, There is a reason for POV tag on this article and long threads of discussions for changing LEDE and overall article. Pretending/re-stating that 'current LEDE/article is fine' is completely unconstructive and hampering improvement of this article. Abhishikt (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well this response to my question is well, nonresponsive. You may have a misunderstanding of the way things work around here. A POV tag does not mean "c'mon everyone let's change the article". It means an editor has expressed a concern: nothing more. In order to change the article he is required to put forth an argument. If the argument is not persuasive, then guess what: the change is not adopted. And eventually the tag will be removed in due course. Right now we're at the point where the argument is not persuasive. I strongly suggest you stop violating WP:NPA by accusing editors of bring "unconstructive" and "hampering" merely because your position does not have consensus. – Lionel (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - pretty good, and much better than the present lead, which pushes the article firmly down the course of "let's grab as many nasty comments as possible about athiesm, just so long as they have used the adjective militant, however fleetingly, and construct an attack page by means of synthesis." But the lead does also need to acknowledge that the label "militant atheism" is not just a pejorative term but in some contexts (especially marxism/leninism) a self-applied badge and something closer to a technical term with a real meaning. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a much better description of the term. I'm not very concerned about the supposed lack of RS's for noting that the term is both controversial and pejorative, as both of these facts are supported by reliably sourced text within the article itself. While it doesn't seem quite so bad as Snalwibma is implying, the current lead does indeed seem to be biased against atheists, in the same way that the term "militant atheist" itself is often used-- the inclusion of the hatred quote is a particularly poor choice. A more neutral intro like this one is a good solution. siafu (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - It is not true that there are no reliable sources that support the statement that it is a controversial and pejorative term. There are several sources in the article that back this up.[2][3][4] Please note that the current sources in the lede are all individual opinions about the meaning of the term. It is also important to note that these opinions are indeed as broad-ranging as is described. So "controversial", "pejorative", and "broad-ranging" are all well justified by the existing sources in the article. Is it necessary to add these references to the lede? That certainly would be fine with me. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello User:PeaceLoveHarmony! Thanks for your efforts in trying to improve the article. In my humble opinion, your version violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR since you are using different sources and drawing your own conclusions from them. We need a source that specifically states that the term is controversial and pejorative. Otherwise, this advocates a certain point of view. I hope you see my point. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He provided 3 sources. The first and third are perfectly explicit.   — Jess· Δ 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You actually cannot see the sources. I will enable the references section here now. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly improved description, and much better supported by the sources. The sourcing we have for the current lead are, indeed, either personal opinions regarding the topic, or dramatically limited in scope to not encompass the entire article. In fact, the latter problem is one of the reasons many of us have pushed for deletion. This structuring, instead, makes it clear that there are two different uses of the term, which properly contextualizes all the content to follow.   — Jess· Δ 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Adding this entry for formality, it's obvious that I fully support this wording for LEDE of this article. This defines the term 'Militant Atheism' with sufficient clarify, covering the historical as well the current usage of the term from NPOV. Abhishikt (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I fail to see how "pejorative" is sourced anywhere in the entry. "Controversial" is clearly sourced, but pejorative is not. can someone point it out if I'm just missing something.Griswaldo (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User:Griwaldo's assessment, which resonates with my previous comment. I however did not find a source for "controversial" either. Could you please point it out to me? Moreover, the term "pejorative" reflects only one usage of the term and is not appropriate to describe the term "militant atheism" in general. Cheers, AnupamTalk 22:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, for one, we have Christianity Unveiled by Baron D'Holbach (page xix - xx). We also have PLH's first and third ref, which all define the term as a disparaging/derogatory slur. I believe there are more, but those should be sufficient.   — Jess· Δ 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
According to an Oxford University Press published academic book, Baron d'Holbach, himself, is considered a militant atheist so his text reflects his point of view.[5] Similarly, Catherine Fahringer and David A. Niose are both activists and their writing reflects advocacy. None of the philosophers, both atheists and theists, have classified militant atheism in the same fashion. Their classification, on the other hand, is reflected in the current introduction of the article. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
1) The text is not authored by Baron d'Holbach. It is by David Holohan. Did you read it? 2) You are apparently rejecting sources on the basis that the authors have expressed opinions about the topic. We don't do that. That's also not what WP:Advocacy addresses. Did you read that either?   — Jess· Δ 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the source doesn't even meet WP:RS since it's published by a vanity press. Did you check that? Moreover, the opinions of self-described activists carry undue weight when compared to renowned philosophers and sociologists who have defined the term. --AnupamTalk 05:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There are WP:RS for this. One of the most notable philosophers A.C.Grayling agrees with it. Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy. Abhishikt (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Christianity Unveiled was published by a vanity press, which places it under WP:SPS. SPS's are considered reliable to present the opinions of their authors, but we cannot use it as a secondary source. We have other secondary sources which additionally support the statement, however, some of which have already been listed. We do not reject reliable sources simply because their author is described as an activist somewhere, nor because the author is labelled by the term we wish to describe. Indeed, doing so would be improper, and lead to articles based entirely on critiques of concepts lodged by unaffiliated laymen.   — Jess· Δ 01:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a reason. Consensus is not a vote, and a vote without a stated reason can't be considered.   — Jess· Δ 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This lede gives undue emphasis on the contemporary usage. The term was in fact used in a nearly official fashion to refer to the USSR's policies, which covers a significant portion of the article. This is not reflective of the article's content (misleading, one may say) and is unsourced. Saying "militant atheism" is a controversial pejorative term when applied to movements like New Atheism would be more acceptable, and may even be an effective addition, but this lede otherwise weakens the article. Turnsalso (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Better than the current but still way off base. Partly just poor wording. But good intention..

Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term used to characterize atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term used by some ... to characterize atheism which they contend is militantly hostile towards religion.

Reason: the way it is written looks like it grants that there is in fact a signficant form of militart atheism byt NPOV thinks maybe not maybe someone made up the term.

The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging, and has been applied both to totalitarian governments that have enforced atheism through violent means and non-violent individuals who express views that are hostile toward religious beliefs and/or seek to reduce the influence of religion in society through litigation - needs citation -can be misread to mean that "militant atheism" is a term that has been applied...this is an error of writing please fix it.

suggested fix


The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging, and has been applied both to the practices of totalitarian governments and to the activities of non-violent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  • oppose as I don't see a source for the comment "Militant atheism is a controversial pejorative term in existence" being valid because the League of Militant atheists existed and it appears to me that some people are either ignorant of the group or in denial. The source does not appear to take that into account.. As the term in that historical context applied to a group whom by their own self designation acknowledged that their atheist doctrine was what motivated their behavior in the name they used to describe themselves. In order for what people here are suggesting to be valid the League of Militant atheists would have not been labeled by other atheists as people whom don't represent their "atheism". In other words we have a designation of more than one kind of atheism from within atheists circles. Not a label placed on atheists by non atheist as the comment people here are wanting to add implies. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current lede is sourced to 6 sources and is reflective of the entire article. The proposed lede is undue, POV rhetoric by those who are antagonistic to the very term itself! Note I asked above why the proposal was better and no explanation was offered. – Lionel (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt, Didn't you read my comment? There is a reason for POV tag on this article and long threads of discussions for changing LEDE and overall article. If you don't know that reason, then you better read all those threads. BTW I had asked "If anyone is not satisfied with this, please state what is wrong in this and how it should be corrected?" and you still haven't given any improvement suggestion. Abhishikt (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
All a POV tag means is that at least 1 editor has a concern and there is a discussion on the talk page. It is not a mandate to change even a single word in the article. And if a consensus does not emerge then it won't change. I am not required to provide a suggestion or anything anything else if I feel that the current version is NPOV and within policy. It is your obligation to present an argument to persuade me to adopt your proposal. And right about now the arguments presented have not been persuasive. That said... I feel that this version is an improvement [5]. – Lionel (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I obviously support this lede, as it clearly and sufficiently covers the two different usage of the term in NPOV. It is sourced by multiple WP:RS.
Although I offer one suggestion instead of "controversial pejorative term", it can be "incorrect pejorative term" [6] as per notable philosopher A. C. Grayling, which is well sourced with WP:RS. Abhishikt (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This additional comment is in response to those who have suggested that the words "controversial" and "pejorative" are not supported by reliable sources and that to use these words is to be committing "synthesis" and "original research". I believe this is an overly pedantic misinterpretation of the rules and that we should use some common sense. WP:COMMON.
Synthesis implies some type of logical syllogism, e.g. 1) A implies B. 2) B. implies C 3) therefore, A implies C.
This is NOT a syllogism: 1) A says X is a Y. 2) B says X is a Q. 3) A and B are saying different things about X.
The rules regarding synthesis and original research apply to the taking of two or more different ideas and combining them, via logical syllogism, to come up with a NEW idea. A simple statement that different sources have different opinions about the meaning of a term is NOT synthesis; it is simply a statement about the sources. If we applied the rule as you are suggesting, then one could not write that "X is a controversial issue" even though there were many differing opinions on X, unless one could find a reliable source that explicit stated "X is a controversial issue". I believe that it is NOT synthesis or original research to state that "Multiple reliable sources have wide disagreement about the meaning of the term 'militant atheism'". This is a true statement that is quite obvious from a cursory review of the current References section of the article. It is also NOT synthesis to say that "Some reliable sources view the term ‘militant atheism’ to be insulting and/or slanderous." (Grayling, for example.) Again, this is a simple obvious statement backed by the existing references. In the interest of conciseness, I simply suggest that these two obvious statements that are backed by the existing references be summarized using the words "controversial" and "pejorative". PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This additional comment is in response to those who oppose using the word "pejorative" to describe "militant atheism" because it has been used as a term of self-identification at times, e.g. by Marxist-Leninist activists. The fact, as backed up by current references, is that the term is considered a “slander” by Grayling, and is also referred to as an insult by other reliable sources. So it most definitely IS a pejorative, and this should be noted in the LEDE. Current usage is at least as important as historical usage, if not more so. I have no problem with a little bit of re-wording to indicate that it has also been used as a self-referring label in the past by totalitarian regimes, for example, but the current pejorative connotation should NOT be ignored in the lede. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I also oppose this proposal. The term "militant atheist" was not always used with pejorative intentions, and the text proposed here suggests that it has been always been used this way (and as already noted by other users, it was also used by the "League of Militant Atheists".) Also, the fact that sometimes it was used as a "pejorative" does not need to be stated in the first sentence of the lead (and the current introduction mentions anyway the recent pejorative use of the term). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, p271 ISBN 0-393-02030-4
  2. ^ Dave Niose (1894). "The Myth of Militant Atheism". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2011-07-09. When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. 
  3. ^ Catherine Fahringer, The militant atheist, Freethought Today, October 1997.
  4. ^ "Militant", in Trask, R.L. (2001). Mind the gaffe: the Penguin guide to common errors in English. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-051476-7, pp. 186–187.
  5. ^ Gerald Robert McDermott. Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2011-03-05. The Holbachians were disciples of Baron d'Holbach, a militant atheist who opposed both Christianity and desim (because it was theistic). 
  6. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

Bad wording - this article is grossly POV

I am making my edits one by one so if anyone has a problem they can revert it without drama. Save the drama for your mama, please. No whine to admins no block dramas thanks. I will listen to feedback but the lousy grmmr grammatically speakin' does not help either side.

I am going for nuetrual gramm fixss but spling is not the issue.

Let's move Baggini material lower

No belong in lead.

"British philosopher Julian Baggini describes an atheistic active hostility to religion as militant and says hostility "requires more than just strong disagreement with religion — it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief." Hatred? Is that what the others say? Too strong to put in second sentence. It is just one isolated guys opine. Baggini is not typical and giving him the top space makes no sense whichever "side" you are on


I agree that "The precise definition of the term is ambiguous, and broad-ranging." Why is this one guy getting to be the headliner? He is not typical of the view is he? Who put his quote on the top of the article? It does not belong there. IT DOESNT MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. nOboDy sHoUlD be hpppy with this article.

Hello! WP:LEDE states that the lede should contain a "summary of its most important aspects." I believe that we can move some of the philosophical discussion in the current introduction to a separate section titled "concepts," as is done in the article on existentialism. The current introduction would retain its current form, with the exception of the philosophical opinion, but will include a summary of this new "concepts" section. What do you and others think of this proposition? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The Baggini's view seems to be his POV and clearly he is not notable to belong to LEDE. Second point is that there are much more notable philosophers, like A. C. Grayling whose explaination of this term outweigh Baggini's. Abhishikt (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I provisionally support this proposal in principle. As a reminder, this is not about "voting" which is a misconception which has led to miscarriages of process in this topic before. Concur that "Baggini's view seems to be his POV " per Abhishikt. Concur that "article on existentialism." is an appropriate model on basis that article is essentailly a matter of "philosophical opinion" per Anupam. My participation should be howerver be teken to suggest that this article is not itself a possible afd candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilishlyhandsome (talkcontribs) 19:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Devilishlyhandsome, thanks for your comments. I've mentioned this in the latest proposal here and have included your support in my proposal. You can see it below. Cheers, AnupamTalk 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support if Anupam's proposal (below) is adopted. The points made so far are well taken and this change will work perfectly with the new Intro. It's not perfect, but I think it's a compromise we all can live with. – Lionel (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Research on early usesUsed 2002

In 2002, in the wake of post-911 concerns, Richard Dawkins drew laughs from an audience [6] with the term "militant atheism"; largely in response to his criticism of religion...took up the term and used it to defend the faith.

Yeah - too POV. But this is how it prob got started - Dawkins-bashers. So -was Bagini beofre or aftr.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope

Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). "Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion". University of California Press. Retrieved 16 July 2011. "The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).

So Stark & Finke used it before Dawkins. Point for the religionists. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Early-use-of-term research: another hit: used by Kohut in 1972

Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage H Kohut - Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1972 - pep-web.org ... The current materialistic rationalism in Western culture, on the other hand, while giving greater freedom to the enhancement of the self, tends to belittle, or (eg, in the sphere where a militant atheism holds sway) to forbid, the traditional forms of institutionalized relatedness to the ..

Important to note he did not capitalize and used the expression in passing as though he made it up, actually a separate adjective + nounDevilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This use by Kohut was NOT used in a manner suggesting anything other than use of an ADJECTIVE+NOUN formulation.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" is not hate

The lede should not highlight a distortion which tends to be read as equating atheism with hate. That is a current POV problem. If anyone defines MA it perhaps would be Dawkins.


[7])

the comment says "Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science"

WP should not feed POV propaganda it should let topics be defined by their proponents or by mainstream critics not by fringe extremists.


On the new contributor Devilishlyhandsome comments.. Lets play nice. Here your calling someone's contributions "POV" rubbish. [8] Your so new that you use time worn Wiki phrases like "POV". Please clarify if you are a single purpose account. As I show no other articles you have contributed to. Are you maybe a second account created by a regular already created user. Also could you sign your comments so that people can clearly attribute them to you. Thanks in Advanced. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I think it's a bit much to claim he's a sockpuppet, but if you have good grounds you could request a check. (Edit: It would seem from his inability to format correctly he could have just been a lurker) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't, look at the what the editor posted on my personal page.. [9] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
THis is a POV offensive, a personal attack, and a naked attempt at a personal attack on this user - ad hominen. Why don't you stick to the specifcs. Yes POV is POV is POV. It does not belong on wikipedia so, by definition, it goes into the Recycling Bin.
RE: use of the term "POV rubbish" - this is not a basis for a checkusr invetigation. See Merriam Webster[10] which defines "rubbish" as "nonsensical". To state that content is nonsensical is not an attack on a user and is not a basis for launching a vindictive personal investigation. "Rubbish" is also probably somewhat of a Britishism. " Don't attack the user. Stick to the issues. You have no basis to run a checn and even if you confirmed your "suspcions' of dark evil "Sock puppetry" you would simpy be engaged in WIkiiLaywering CYberbullying. THis user has not violated any rules so lay off. WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. ANd as for "single purpose" - if I can't bring sanity and levityh into this article I dont see why I should waste any of my time on any future engagement with wikipedia. It seems that a blatant POV ideological offensive from the Conservepedia crowd is gaining traction at WP. Shame on you. As for my religious friends, if I have to be subjected to this kind of harassment - threats of check investigation, etc. - I tell you what buddy, I am done with the Bible. Kaput, finished. I am going to discard my Bibles, stop reading them, and stop humoring my religious friends. Last night I spoke to a very devout fundametnatlist friend who has had a series of serious life threatenting hospitalizations and after doing all of this research on Dawkins, etc I tried to be kind and encourage him that his faith was easing his streess and helping him to stay healthy. If I get hassled or blocked or checkusr hassled in any way I am going to that guy and giving it to him straight that the stress reduction benefit he experiences is a pure placebo effect that would work as well if he worship the Great Spaghetti Monster and I will promote non-WP sites on the basis that WP admins fell for a religionist gambit. So lay off the personal attack and I will be kind and not disabuse these believers and keep my intellectual opinion on this topic here where it belongs, on WP. That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the religionsist wanna throw at me. Bumping me from WP, which is your obvious agenda, is the very least of my worries. So back off the personal attack.
In sum, I would rather get kicked off Wikipedia for the rest of my life than cave into this kind of intimidation tactic. Signed Devilishly Handsome
Hyperbole don't you think? Also Father John Whiteford is active on this page. After your comments on my personal page making whatever threats about getting various Orthodox clergy (i.e. Father Hopko) [11] to confront me I think that Father Whiteford will come to my defense. As so far he has made no complaints to me on my comments here. I think your breaking more and more Wiki policy by the minute. Here I'll make a list...
  • . Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for this comment "THis is a POV offensive, a personal attack, and a naked attempt at a personal attack on this user - ad hominen. Why don't you stick to the specifc\s. Yes POV is POV is POV. It does not belong on wikipedia so, byu definition, it goes into the Recycling Bin. "
  • .Now why is adding a sourced comment into the article POV rubbish.. Also that is a vio of WP:Assume Good Faith. And aren't you being anti-intelligentsia when you labeled there Harold J. Berman's comment [[12]] POV rubbish?
  • And.. "To state that content is nonsensical is not an attack on a user and is not a basis for launching a vindictive personal investigation." Is assuming bad faith not WP:Assume Good Faith.
  • And. "you would simpy be engaged in WIkiiLaywering CYberbullying. " No I have had checkuser ran on my accounts. Why so touchy about it?
  • And. "if I can't bring sanity and levityh into this article I dont see why I should waste any of my time on any future engagement with wikipedia. It seems that a blatant POV ideological offensive from the Conservepedia crowd is gaining traction at WP. Shame on you." Your assuming again and assuming is not staying on issue. Don't ask what you are unwilling to do yourself.
  • Also this one.. That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the religionsist wanna throw at me looks like a threat. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
How about we all slow down a bit. Now, taken out of context, that looks bad and so I don't blame the admin that you went running to with your complaints one bit for very mildly pointing out to me that I was being put in this demonized position. And actually, your baiting had some effect and it was a poor choice of words on my part and to the extent you might,just possibly, really feel put upon, I do (again, directly) apologize. However, as you well know, the suggested action on my part was not any sort of illegal or unethical threat at all it was a lawful, ethical and appropriate outlining that actions have consequences and that if you engineer an injustice at Wikipedia while doing business as a representative of a particular denomination, that, even though you are operating under a cloak of anonymity, you would be held intellectually responsible and your denomination will be made aware of the suppression of free thought which had been conducted in their name. If this bothers you please consider a user page in which you do not purport to represent a denomination or a communion. Holding people responsible is an exercise in moral responsibility not the reverse, as you manage to present it, as you characterized it with the loaded term "threat" if you wish, just as we are under a "threat" of a speeding ticket if we race down the highway at 80 mph. So, yeah, slow down, you might get a ticket. And there is no want for people around here willing to make "threats" of checkuser, block, ban, etc. So let's save the drama for our mama and move on in this deconstruction.
Your citation speaks for itself when you cite Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack let's not all bore ourselves with anymore of this round of accusations.
The real substance of your allegation, once we stop playing word games with the word "threat" is this suggestion that I was implying that there was an attempt to get you personally in trouble with Father Thomas or someone. But that is ridiculous. (1) You are an anonymous user there is no way that could happen. (2) Since there is a threat of running check user on me, which would disclose where I work and who I am, I am more at risk than you ("The ...gentleman...doth protest too much. (3) the actually meaning of my statement is completely missed which is not that there would be any sanction within the church against you - I know enough about the ROC to know the odds of that happening are slim to none, what a laugh but simply that
  • (A) I would exercise my own personal, sacrosanct right to modify my opinion of the Christian Church and withdraw all of this pandering to the clergy which I have been willing to provide, all of these blandishments about their good intentions and the core message of the Gospel, but instead would
  • (B) change my song entirely and let it be known to the intelligentsia of the world that because of an engineered controversy, in which my own human error was exploited to the hilt, and in which there was no lack of deliberately baiting me to try to get me to slip up in an angry moment, but mostly through flat out misrepresentation, my God given rights to free speech on the topic of atheism and the respect which I believe we must accord atheists was deliberately and brutally stomped down and resulted in an unfair and reprehensible stomp down of my freedom of thought and freedom of expression on WP. In other words, I won't be abused and then silenced. The use of silence is part of the way that the clergy have gotten away with so much abuse over the years. I would not let myself be framed up, baited, blocked and then be complicit in my being silenced, and I would use the court of public opinion to achieve a justice denied at WP. But then that won't happen now because I was able to clarify the record and anyone can see that my edits have been earnest, balanced, helpful and clearly in good faith, breaking the impasse which kept this page from normal development,and for that I should be thanked not hassled. Meanwhile, you have contributed not one single edit to mainspace, and simply initiated what I have the right to regard as a mini-Inquisition and then a prosecution of the way I handled myself in the face of your prosecutorial innuendo. You know, that is a process the Church is well practice with and many a heretic has been burnt at the stake in accordance with that exact formula. Not foolin' me and nothing that goes down on these pages escapes the scrutiny of the intelligentsia, even people who have left WP long ago over similar matters. So Letting my religious friends know what happened is not anything any WP personnel should even dream of forbidding - yet this very act is what you characterize as a "threat". Repeat: any communication with clergy would in no way shape or manner constitute a threat of adverse action against LoveMonkey and any representation to the contrary is a flat falsity and distortion of the record. There was never any assertion or implication that the communication with Fr.Thomas would relate to LoveMonkey; that is a utter distortion if not an outright invention; it is a best an overzealous prosecutorial manuever on his part, if it is not a case of malicious prosecutorial prosecution or parania. There is no basis whatsoever in characterizing communication with Fr Thomas as a action "against" Love Monkey. Nor would that even work if it was my intention; the churches always defend their representatives, as recent history amply demonstrates, and only a fool would honestly believe that suppression of free speech regarding atheism is anything that any church official would take seriously. Thus, for LM to contend that DevilishlyHandsome is somehow terrorizing him for suggesting that there will be a conversation with the church leaders is patently ridiculous; the RO officials would only nod their heads vaguely even if they knew the identity of LoveMonkey, which they don't. In other words, LM is acting like he thinks that Fr Thomas would treat him unfairly if DevishlyHandsome reported him to Fr Thomas. That shows a lack of faith in Fr Thomas.
The final point and then I hope this ordeal is finally over and we can go our separate ways with no further recriminations, accusations and threats of administrative blacklisting, is this - that I came here pursuant to a deliberate outreach on the part of WP to attract editors to this article. WP shouldn't ask people to edit articles and then ban-threaten them because POV warriors don't like them. I utilized a lawful account of which, outside of the provocations to a harsh word to those who sought to have me ousted, did not do anything but add constructive editorial content, and that despite these constructive, thoughtful edits someone who is clearly and unashamedly taking a partisan POV on the topic of this article shifted the dialogue into a discussion of this user and whether this user was legal and then the conversation was shifted to a discussion of ways to mess with this user and harass this user using a check user background investigation which might lead to "outing" this user as a suspected panderer-of-athiests, which could actually create a personal security risk for this user in many areas of the world. So the take home lesson is that we should stick to the topic of the article and stop making other users the subject of our discussions unless there is a clear and convincing reason not to. As is predictable and happened here, once that line is crossed, then you do perhaps provoke policy violations.
So to some degree I took the bait and got a bit angry as well I should have. I was provoked into a statement which taken out of context could be presented by someone with a prosecutorial motive and could be read to be taken to mean something it does not. All that was meant was that Fr. Thomas and others would be made to know that RO activism on WP has created a bit of a dust up and that in my opinion that damages my relationship with RO folks with whom I work. If you "out" me with checkuser and I am associated publicly with Militant atheism, while yourself clinging to anonymity, posing as a victim, I will have little choice but to go with the flow. So how about we just let this matter rest; I've made my own apology to the extent appropriate, you do what you want but as per the gist of my single post to your TalkPage all I ask of you and all I have asked of you is to please leave me alone and stick to the business at hand. Is that too much to ask?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

_____ You apologise for your threat and then you post more of the same language ..

You complain about me reporting you and then make the comment.. "Holding people responsible is an exercise in moral responsibility not the reverse, as you manage to present it,"

"The real substance of your allegation, once we stop playing word games with the word "threat" is this suggestion that I was implying that there was an attempt to get you personally in trouble with Father Thomas or someone."

No your threat was unclear and therefore open ended and as such ambigious.

"You know, that is a process the Church is well practice with and many a heretic has been burnt at the stake in accordance with that exact formula"

Name some and source em then we'll see if the numbers compare to the millions killed in the name of atheism. We can see that in Professor John Lennox's comments on militant atheism [13] and the atrocities committed in the name of atheism and other Wikipedia valid sources [14]-Dinesh D'Souza, [15] Ian Hutchinson.

"that is a utter distortion if not an outright invention;"

So the administrator Ed Johnston is delusional, ask him if he sees your comment as one that is not a perceivable threat (thus warranting his response). The more I read your comments the more I percieve you as deceptive and duplictious. As this appears to be something of a game to you. You wish to use Wikipedia to make a point about how your persecuted as an individual and yet this article is evidence that athiesm is not with clean hands and ou don't like that, even if millions of people really were killed because they believed in a God or the supernatural. Your so completely wrong its obvious, as you'll never admit that atheists killed and persecuted millions of religious people (Buddhists, Taoists, Christians) because of their religion. Prove me wrong post you agree that atheists did kill theists and then source it. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |}

This is not about atheism vs theism. I never said any of this. I never denied that Stalin was an atheist and a mass murdered. I take offense at the implication that I did. As a matter of fact, I myself am not an atheist. So why not chill. I will respond to your questions and comments about the topic at hand, upon which we share many areas of agreement. As stated before I apologized for not carefully watching the tone of my remarks which might be misinterpreted and that is not and was not qualified in any way. Please be gracious enough to accept that at face value. And the point of my remarks about my numerous friends nthe RO communion was primarily intended to suggest maybe we could be friends rather than such adversaries. I really have no agenda other than the truth and the integrity of WP and my relationships with all editors here, all. Maybe if we take a break we will recognize our common humanity our common dedication to a better WP and move on. Thank you in advance. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)