Talk:Persecution of atheists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ath

Persecution of atheists is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia.

For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss wether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Could be expanded 3 "Atheists" versus "atheists" 4 de la Barre 5 Recent edits

[edit] NPOV

May be this article isn't NPOV, but as it is written it certainly seems that way. Perhaps it is only in need of a cleanup. A Cleanup which I cannnot provide. This Article reads less like an encyclopedic entry on Persecution of a group, and more like a strange tirade against the U.S. and the Supreme Court. Just my 2 cents... anyone else have an opinion?

I think it reads fine, and I think the cases mentioned are very interesting, and I often wonder why my country (not american) didn't go through equivalent processes yet. Also, it might look like a tirade against them, but to me it looks like they have a tirade against atheists, so I guess it evens out. PHF 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not even close to NPOV- I'm placing a disputed tag on the page. The problem is not so much content-wise, but that this is allegedly an article about the "persecution" of atheists. Disapproval and distrust doesn't even come close. Perhaps there is a place for a discussion of these issues in the general Atheism article, but their place here is manifestly POV. The only category whose inclusion isn't POV is the Historical one, and there are issues there as well. Gabrielthursday 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that since I put the disputed tag on the page, the article has been further expanded with more information which does not amount to persecution. Please take a look at the other Persecution articles. I haven't edited it yet because I want to give people a chance to defend the current structure, but I certainly will strike the aforementioned sections if there is not some discussion of why they ought to remain. Gabrielthursday 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not seeing anyone step forward, I'm going to proceed in two steps- I'm removing material that is principally concerned with unfavourable attitudes towards Atheism. I'm also placing political restrictions on atheists in a separate category. I don't think these political restrictions rise to the level of persecution, but I solicit different views on the subject. Essentially, I think there has to be some deprivation of civil liberties, rather than a mere prohibition on direct participation in government. Gabrielthursday 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could be expanded

Though all the information in this article seems good, I think it needs more information. A lot of what the previous writer said is correct: because it lacks information, it does seem like a tirade against U.S. policies and not NPOV. The simple way to fix this is talk more widely about current world views on atheism, and to include more opinions of those who disagree with it. I don't have much information myself, and request that people add to this article.

Well, I couls suggest something to be added, I would like to see a mention on Nazi Germany persecution of atheists. PHF 04:50, 12 June 2006

(UTC)

Wait, is Atheism a religion or not? Its in a catagory of 'persecuted religions', but I always thought of atheism as a rejection of religion. Wikiwarlock 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the "persecuted group" section of the "religious persecution" series of articles. Nowhere is it stated to be a religion, anymore than the Soviet Union (which is also on the list) is a religion. -Silence 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Atheists" versus "atheists"

I've reverted the move to capitalising "atheist". I've discussed this over at Talk:Persecution_of_Heathens#Heathens_is_a_proper_noun_and_capitalized_word.3F, but in future I believe it should be discussed here, especially as people seem to be using arguments for "heathen" which do not necessarily apply here. To summarise my point of view:

• "Atheist" is not a proper noun, whilst words like "Christian" are, so there is no inconsistency - the consistency should be with Wikipedia standards, which says words should be lower case unless the word is a proper noun. Hence it is inconsistent to capitalise "atheist".
• Liftarn said "You can't have different standards for different religions" - atheism is not a religion, and it is pushing a POV to describe it as such. Mdwh 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is, but just wanted to say that it is not at all unfounded, see [1]. PHF 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de la Barre

I've removed the de la Barre reference, as I've been unable to find a reference to him in fact being an atheist, or that suspicions of atheism were the cause of his persecution. Gabrielthursday 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I agree with the removal of the de la Barre section. However, the section on the US experience seemed relevant and I am puzzled as to the seconds complete removal (although it could use some size reduction). JoshuaZ 00:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconds=section's? I don't claim that the deleted material is inappropriate for wikipedia- but I certainly believe it to be inappropriate for this article. It just doesn't amount to the type of persecution described in the other persecution articles. Perhaps attitudes towards atheism could be included in the main article, or in a separate page, akin to Anti-Christian prejudice. Although a weak article overall, I'll cite this statement from that article as indicative of the proper distinction between prejudice, discrimination and persecution: "prejudice is a form of religious intolerance; it may be simply a mental or emotional attitude, or it may lead to stereotyping, discrimination, or even – in extreme cases – to persecution of Christians." Because of the deleted sections' inclusion, the article appeared to engage in a form of special pleading- that persecution of atheists has a lower threshold than other groups, and is thus POV. Ironically, the appearance of special pleading actually reflects poorly on atheism.

The question of where the political discrimination section ought to end up is an interesting question. If it were part of a larger narrative involving actual persecution, I'd say it should probably remain. However, given that there is no such connexion, and is not itself persecution, it should end up with the other deleted sections wherever they roam.

Perhaps a new page titled "Bias against Atheism" or "Bias against Atheists"? I believe such a page could be broad enough to include discussion of everything from attitudes towards atheism to discrimination towards atheists.

I don't think we're necessarily that far apart here, and I hope we can come to a compromise. Gabrielthursday 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I suggest we wait a few days to see if any other editors have any objections to that since it would be a major change to the article. Comments would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree I think a separate article should be made, I think it would be more appropriate.Goatan 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Chiming in to suggest Discrimination of atheists as thename for the new article. Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a long time now. Are you just going to leave the NPOV tag on and completely forget about moving the removed information to an appropriate place? Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to do it, you of course or more than welcome to. JoshuaZ 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)